Akemrelax

Disscussion About Whether MBTI is True/False

37 posts in this topic

Hi guys,

Lately I have been seeing a lot of discussion in the forum about the MBTI personality types (INTP, INTJ, etc.). Forgive me, I couldn't stop myself, but I think MBTI is just not true. From what I have gathered from reading about it and watching videos it is not a good predictor of your personality or your cognitive functions. I did 4 different test and got different results. It may appear a simple test based upon 4 easy to understand parameters but if you actually go into it its's not.

One thing is that there is no agreed upon definition of MBTI. Another is that, I don't see many of the distinctions in MBTI in my direct experience. Like what's the difference between extraverted thinking and extraverted intuition? Or introverted feeling and introverted sensing? And is it a useful distinction in terms of  psychology? 

I made this post to warn anybody who is taking MBTI too seriously, and to hear from people who think it is true why it is true. Ime going into it was a huge time sink. It is the best way to get cut off from actuality and get lost in concepts. I'm eager to hear from you if you disagree with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As with most things, it's part-true.

All models of reality are partial and limited.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

As with most things, it's part-true.

It is so partial that it's not worth using.

Harry Potter Houses are more accurate. I suggest we start a "Resources for Ravenclaws" thread ;).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@modmyth Thing is that some people take it seriously because it is marketed as being kinda sciency. MBTI 'experts' claim you can't look at behavior to determine type because MBTI doesn't account for behavior. It gets super confusing when you dig deep into it. Like the terms used are differently defined in Jungian terms, 'feeling' is not the conventional definition of feeling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Akemrelax said:

It is so partial that it's not worth using.

Harry Potter Houses are more accurate. I suggest we start a "Resources for Ravenclaws" thread ;).

Nah ya wrong about that. Its as partial as the 10 ox herding, ideas on enlightenment, and the concepts Leo introduces... yet you're still here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, electroBeam said:

Its as partial as the 10 ox herding, ideas on enlightenment, and the concepts Leo introduces... yet you're still here. 

Some concepts are more accurate than others. SP can be used in a practical way, MBTI cannot.

SD can be used to predict behaviour, patterns of thinking, values, etc.

I cannot see the distinctions MBTI makes in real life, like the ones I mentioned above.

Making a claim and not providing any explaining doesn’t add much to the discussion. Just saying.

Edited by Akemrelax
Typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Akemrelax said:

Some concepts are more accurate than others. 

Yep that's right

1 hour ago, Akemrelax said:

SP can be used in a practical way, MBTI cannot.

What's practical and not practical is relative to your beliefs and who you are. I find MBTI and enneagram far more effective at describing a person's behaviour than SD. 

Quote

I cannot see the distinctions MBTI makes in real life, like the ones I mentioned above.

You wont because its a model, you also wont see the distinctions SD, 10 ox herdings, concepts leo introduces make either if you look closely enough. 

Edited by electroBeam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

12 minutes ago, electroBeam said:

You wont because its a model, you also wont see the distinctions SD, 10 ox herdings, concepts leo introduces make either if you look closely enough. 

You can't make a distinction between stage yellow and stage red? You can't make a distinction between different types of cars?

You know perfectly well what I mean. You're purposely bringing in non-duality to prove me wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Akemrelax said:

You're purposely bringing in non-duality to prove me wrong. 

1.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@modmyth Yes, I agree with you. I actually tried to research this with an open mind but it just doesn’t make sense that’s why I am open to hearing from people.

I think there are some types in there like INTP which is suppose to be a scientific nerd and INFP which is suppose to be the lost artist that attracts people. But the other types are less stereotypical. Plus it’s hard to see the distinction between many of the ‘cognitive functions’ and the ‘logic’ of why certain ‘cognitive functions’ result in certain types. Plus it seems there is a lot of disagreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Akemrelax Maybe it doesn't fit you because you're more in the middle.

If a model doesn't work for you, just ignore it and move on to something else.

For me it offers valuable insight into my personality.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Akemrelax said:

because it is marketed as being kinda sciency

It is a rich and complicated model, corrupted by everyone wanting to be a snowflake and websites ready to serve whatever attracts most people. If you want to really understand the core concepts behind typing, the original source that started all this is the book Psychological Types by Carl Jung.

If you are looking for something specific and sciency, maybe you will like Objective Personality System (YouTube). it's a more refined and objective version of MBTI (MBTI has 16 types, OPS has 512). I think they are overcomplicating stuff, but they sure are making some good discoveries.  

Edited by Himanshu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Akemrelax This is what intuition gets you with out putting any actual work into the subject. Quick to form beliefs and spread them. These are learning disabilities. 

dunning-kruger-chart-1-e1567018113338.jp

Beliefs formed at the highest confidence point... 

Edited by integral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the question could be worded differently. 

Every model of reality is ultimately false, but some models are useful. Reality is the ONLY TRUE MODEL OF ITSELF. 

If you seek to categorize people based on certain traits, and your subjective experience of reality reinforces your model, then you have a useful model. 

If your categorization is invalidated through subjective experience, then you have a useless model. 

You decide what is useful and what is useless. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, integral said:

 This is what intuition gets you with out putting any actual work into the subject. Quick to form beliefs and spread them. These are learning disabilities. 

I actually spend a good amount of time looking into it.

Why do you even comment if you want to spread negativity? If you actually wanted to help you would explain MBTI instead of calling me learning disabled. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Himanshu said:

Psychological Types by Carl Jung.

Okay I’ll give it a read and come back. If I like it maybe I’ll read Gifts Differing too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Akemrelax sorry just came from a similar thread about mbti, now that leo has pushed mbti onto the forum, Doubter threads likes this one are going to pop up every week. non-stop. This one is the 3rd so far in the past few days.

It takes years of practice to properly integrate these maps, to reach a point where we can sea the patterns accurately. All of these maps like SD,mbti... are deeply interconnected. There are valuable insights found when merging them. 

https://integrallife.com/what-is-integral-approach/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Akemrelax said:

Hi guys,

Lately I have been seeing a lot of discussion in the forum about the MBTI personality types (INTP, INTJ, etc.). Forgive me, I couldn't stop myself, but I think MBTI is just not true. From what I have gathered from reading about it and watching videos it is not a good predictor of your personality or your cognitive functions. I did 4 different test and got different results. It may appear a simple test based upon 4 easy to understand parameters but if you actually go into it its's not.

One thing is that there is no agreed upon definition of MBTI. Another is that, I don't see many of the distinctions in MBTI in my direct experience. Like what's the difference between extraverted thinking and extraverted intuition? Or introverted feeling and introverted sensing? And is it a useful distinction in terms of  psychology? 

I made this post to warn anybody who is taking MBTI too seriously, and to hear from people who think it is true why it is true. Ime going into it was a huge time sink. It is the best way to get cut off from actuality and get lost in concepts. I'm eager to hear from you if you disagree with me.

Some maps will work for some people, i dont think every map will resonate with all people. Psychology and medicine can provide varying results, like for example ssris may help some people and have no effect on others, is it then worth saying theyre useless on that basis?

I would like you to consider and answer this question, what is your true intention behind this post? really consider this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Consept said:

what is your true intention behind this post? really consider this

Like I said, to learn about MBTI, because it doesn’t make sense to me (thread is named ‘discussion’ for a reason). I think people are believing in it without really understanding it.

But people just assume close minded bad intent, no one has provided any explanation or tried to clear my confusion. Maybe that says something? Idk
 

34 minutes ago, Consept said:
13 hours ago, Akemrelax said:

Some maps will work for some people, i dont think every map will resonate with all people.

Would you say the same thing if people where discussing astrology or hand writing to determine personality? Or would make a post questioning if it is true?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Akemrelax Since you are just starting out, I recommend you pick something more digestible instead of directly going to Jung. Either Lectures on Jung's Typology by James Hillman and Marie-Louise von Franz or more contemporary Personality Hacker book by Antonia Dodge and Joel Mark Witt. 

Personality Hacker podcast is a good place to start as well. They have multiple episodes discussing Spiral Dynamics and recently invited Dr. Dario Nardi who is working on Neuroscience of Personality - proposing that one's personality is wired. I haven't read it so not sure how legit.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now