Advanced AI-driven MBTI personality test

[aurum]

10 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

What's that?

Verticality is about development.

Self-reflexivity is about construct-awareness.

[EternalForest]

I got INFJ

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 hour ago, aurum said:

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:

 

By astrology, I mean the stereotypical zodiac stuff. Like the ones you would find in a newspaper.

I didn't know precisely what aspect you referred to, and I had a the surface level idea of it within my mind

 

 

[Puer Aeternus]

@Natasha Tori Maru Where would you recommend to start learning about MBTI/cognitive functions? 

Gimmie the sauce! 

[aurum]

13 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

By astrology, I mean the stereotypical zodiac stuff. Like the ones you would find in a newspaper.

I didn't know precisely what aspect you referred to, and I had a the surface level idea of it within my mind

That's fine.

So let's say there is a surface-level, newspaper version of both astrology and MBTI.

And there's also a more serious, deeper version of both as well.

My point is that regardless of depth, they're structurally quite similar. And people use them to collect and stitch together various preloaded identities.

This also holds for Human Design, Gene Keys and Enneagram.

They can be fun or useful for basic introspection. But I don't personally take them seriously beyond that.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

14 minutes ago, aurum said:

That's fine.

So let's say there is a surface-level, newspaper version of both astrology and MBTI.

And there's also a more serious, deeper version of both as well.

My point is that regardless of depth, they're structurally quite similar. And people use them to collect and stitch together various preloaded identities.

This also holds for Human Design, Gene Keys and Enneagram.

They can be fun or useful for basic introspection. But I don't personally take them seriously beyond that.

Oh yes, ok gotcha. This makes sense with your addendum.

I just use it as a curious tool to assist in understanding, but do not hold it to the same rigor as something scientifically proven (I say that acknowledging science is not always the best tool).

I do not use MBTI or the cognitive functions to try to fit them to pre-loaded identities. 

I am one to use it as a frame to enhance understanding of myself and others - but I discard it quite easily when it does not fit. 

It is hard for me to discard any sort of frame, because I can usually move my perspective to be able to see a useful application. But, having said that, I discard things quite easily also if I see it missing the mark too frequently in application. This comes down to me looking at systems like this as never being totally true, or only being circumstantially true.

I digress...!

Edited Wednesday at 04:06 AM by Natasha Tori Maru

[Puer Aeternus]

12 minutes ago, aurum said:

That's fine.

So let's say there is a surface-level, newspaper version of both astrology and MBTI.

And there's also a more serious, deeper version of both as well.

My point is that regardless of depth, they're structurally quite similar. And people use them to collect and stitch together various preloaded identities.

This also holds for Human Design, Gene Keys and Enneagram.

They can be fun or useful for basic introspection. But I don't personally take them seriously beyond that.

Lol, ya. 

I did a one month dive into some of the more woo studies-

For me, astrology was an absolute cheeks predictor of me and my personality. 

But human design was spooky levels of prophetic for God knows wtf reason. I tried to rationalize it away after awhile, but the true aspects just kept crawling back to me.

So there can be value in this weird stuff.

[Joshe]

17 minutes ago, aurum said:

That's fine.

So let's say there is a surface-level, newspaper version of both astrology and MBTI.

And there's also a more serious, deeper version of both as well.

My point is that regardless of depth, they're structurally quite similar. And people use them to collect and stitch together various preloaded identities.

This also holds for Human Design, Gene Keys and Enneagram.

They can be fun or useful for basic introspection. But I don't personally take them seriously beyond that.

They are not structurally similar at all. 

I plugged your statement into ChatGPT and said "Is this correct?" 

[Joshe]

And regarding verticality: 

[Joshe]

1 hour ago, Deziree said:

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

It's more about the physical environment than people. It's just really easy to neglect the physical environment and hard to maintain it. I can spend two weeks getting everything in order but in 3 months, it'll be chaos again because I've gotten lost in my inner world. Makes me want to just throw everything in the trash. lol, but I know I'd regret it. I bought a shipping container to store all my shit in, thinking that would solve all my problems. Nope. That's now a disaster as well and none of my problems are solved. I'll get there! 

[aurum]

26 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

It is hard for me to discard any sort of frame, because I can usually move my perspective to be able to see a useful application. But, having said that, I discard things quite easily also if I see it missing the mark too frequently in application. This comes down to me looking at systems like this as never being totally true, or only being circumstantially true

Smart 

[aurum]

32 minutes ago, Puer Aeternus said:

So there can be value in this weird stuff.

Of course.

The only problem is really just taking it too seriously.

[aurum]

33 minutes ago, Joshe said:

I plugged your statement into ChatGPT and said "Is this correct?" 

Well I disagree with your GPT on certain statements.

Have it debate me instead of you  

Edited Wednesday at 04:45 AM by aurum

[Joshe]

3 minutes ago, aurum said:

Have it debate me instead of you  

haha, I ain't got the energy ATM. 

[Carl-Richard]

6 hours ago, aurum said:

Verticality is about development.

Self-reflexivity is about construct-awareness.

There exists lots of valueable non-vertical, non-construct aware stuff. I'll take massive dumps on theories any day but I'll also acknowledge their value.

[LordFall]

MBTI TypeP(Type)

INTP35%

INTJ30%

ENTP20%

ENTJ15%

You're on the right track in using AI to expand on the model. It has a lot of potential for self-exploration especially in analyzing our thousands of posts here. Thanks for sharing.

I'm gonna use it to flesh out my life purpose more. 

[aurum]

7 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

There exists lots of valueable non-vertical, non-construct aware stuff. I'll take massive dumps on theories any day but I'll also acknowledge their value.

I've acknowledged it can have value from the beginning on this thread. 

What's much less obvious is how it's limited. Especially in the context of a forum like this, which is focused on development.

The problem is that MBTI can't actually ignore verticality without making wrong assumptions, such as equal and innate cognitive preferences. Like it or not, MBTI is playing in vertical territory but without acknowledging it.

This is fine if you're just a normal person who probably isn't going to do much development anyway. You get a cool, new, relatively fixed psychological identity and maybe get to know yourself a little bit better.

But it's very subpar for what we are trying to do.

So to be extremely clear, I think it's fine if you want to learn about MBTI. It may even offer some unique explanatory power compared to some vertical models, which could make it worth integrating. But I don't see anyone else here acknowledging these limitations.

None of these horizontal personality models should be taken that seriously.

Edited Wednesday at 04:22 PM by aurum

[Joshe]

59 minutes ago, aurum said:

None of these horizontal personality models should be taken that seriously.

A large part of "this work" is to know thyself, which is no trivial task. Understanding how one's cognition operates is foundational to "this work". It's not only good for knowing oneself, but also others.

If you were to forget about MBTI and ask yourself "Is fleshing out and defining cognitive patterns a useful endeavor?", the answer would be "if there actually are stable and consistent patterns, it could be very useful". Turns out, there are stable and consistent patterns that we can track. 

The whole point of psychoanalysis is to explore how and why your mind functions the way it does, usually with a goal to resolve a psychological  problem via clarity of one's mentations, and their implications. Cognitive function theory can show you why those mentations are there and why they persist, which could aid in strategy for their removal or addition. Problems are perceived and dealt with differently by different cognitive configurations. Specific configurations can make specific problems more or less challenging.

Knowing your cognition could aid you in finding the best path for verticality. It's a tool. 

The model should be used to build and fortify a foundation for verticality, not to lock oneself into the model. 

Edited Wednesday at 05:21 PM by Joshe

[aurum]

2 hours ago, Joshe said:

The model should be used to build and fortify a foundation for verticality, not to lock oneself into the model. 

But that’s not how it’s used. People do not even acknowledge that lack of verticality is a problem because they mostly don’t even understand that it’s missing. Or why verticality is significant.

If you want to use MBTI as a foundation and build from there, I have no problem with that. I’d encourage it.

Edited Wednesday at 08:00 PM by aurum

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Raises an interesting question - is a model/frame useless if it has merit but is misused? 

You could argue this wrt some of Leos work. 

Outcome vs intent