MBTI Compatibility Theory ..Accurate!?????

[Carl-Richard]

14 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

Spontaneous vs Conscientious doesn't really tell you anything, and neither does Agreeable/Hostile, nor Stable/Neurotic.

That's just ridiculous.

 

14 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

If I know someone's neurotic.. wtf does that tell me?  I'm one of the most stable people I know, yet I'd probably fall under the neurotic category.  It's not in any way meaningful information.  Where would you put a perfectionistic (aka neurotic) person who's super-confident and happy? 

Perfectionism is more correlated with conscientiousness (subsets orderliness and industriousness). Think OCD. Neuroticism (subsets volatility and withdrawal) is about emotional lability and negative emotion, i.e. how frequent and extreme your emotions are. Think BPD (borderline not bipolar).

Confidence and happiness are probably correlated, and they can be explained by combining high conscientiousness and low neuroticism: you tend to get shit done while also having a persistent positive self-image. So you trust your own abilities more (confidence), and you're more likely to be successful in life as well as being naturally happy.

 

14 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

Or a 7w8, like me?  7 = agreeable and friendly with everyone, 8 = disagreeable with everyone. I'm literally agreeable and disagreeable at the same time.  I debate against people (8) who I actually agree with (7).  

Yay, let's mention yet another pseudoscientific personality typology ?

 

14 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

Another problem with the big 5 is.. I can't say e.g. "I don't like C users" as the system is ill-thought-out, and C is ambiguous.

It's because it's not a typology (which is an outdated and empirically unsupported concept in personality theory). It's a trait theory: all people have various degrees of the same traits. It makes sense for the same reason that all people experience different levels of the same types of emotions. In broad behavioral terms, different humans are variations on the same theme. There exists no justifications (statistical, biological or otherwise) for the strong dichotomies postulated by personality typologies.

 

14 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

There are no ambiguities with "Ti", for example.

It's very ambiguous within a typology framework ("Ti-user"). For example, you can appeal to moral values (Fi) as an argument in a debate and then give logical explanations (Ti) for why you did so or why you hold them.

[thisintegrated]

9 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

That's just ridiculous.

A ridiculous argument?

 

9 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Perfectionism is more correlated with conscientiousness (subsets orderliness and industriousness). Think OCD. Neuroticism (subsets volatility and withdrawal) is about emotional lability and negative emotion, i.e. how frequent and extreme your emotions are. Think BPD (borderline not bipolar).

N-No, conscientiousness is more like being "planned" and "organized".  Really nothing to do with confidence.  It's supposed to be the opposite of "spontaneous" or "random".  If Carl, the Big 5 expert, gets these definitions confused so easily, what hope is there for the model?

 

9 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Yay, let's mention yet another pseudoscientific personality typology ?

I don't think that's relevant to the point.  If you don't like the numbers, then just address the descriptions.  How can I be both Agreeable and Disagreeable at the same time?

 

9 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

It's very ambiguous within a typology framework ("Ti-user"). For example, you can appeal to moral values (Fi) as an argument in a debate and then give logical explanations (Ti) for why you did so or why you hold them.

Not at all.  If it seems ambiguous, you just need to google Ti vs Fi and have the definitions cleared up.

 

Edited June 10, 2022 by thisintegrated

[Carl-Richard]

4 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

N-No, conscientiousness is more like being "planned" and "organized". 

Really nothing to do with confidence.  It's supposed to be the opposite of "spontaneous" or "random".  If Carl, the Big 5 expert, gets these definitions confused so easily, what hope is there for the model?

Where are you getting this from?

I was combining different traits (high C and low N) to explain confidence. Other examples: the combination of High E, High A, high C and low N makes you an ideal leader. High E, low C and high N makes you more prone to binge drinking and risky sexual behavior.

 

4 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

I don't think that's relevant to the point.  

It's relevant when it's literally what is being contested (the scientific validity of personality typologies). You're just appealing to more pseudoscience.

 

4 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

Not at all.  If it seems ambiguous, you just need to google Ti vs Fi and have the definitions cleared up.

Man, are you listening at all? I'm talking about the mental gymnastics associated with typing. Again; typologies.

[thisintegrated]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

Where are you getting this from?

omg dude..

Wikipedia:  "Conscientiousness is the personality trait of being careful, or diligent. Conscientiousness implies a desire to do a task well, and to take obligations to others seriously. Conscientious people tend to be efficient and organized as opposed to easy-going and disorderly"

How exactly is organized/careful the same as confident??

 

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

I was combining different traits (high C and low N) to explain confidence. Other examples: the combination of High E, High A, high C and low N makes you an ideal leader. High E, low C and high N makes you more prone to binge drinking and risky sexual behavior.

Wait.. so.. the best film directors, best actors, best CEOs, industry leaders in general, are known for their calmness and agreeability?

Steve Jobs turned Apple into a success because of his high agreeability, and calm demeanour??  You realize how crazy you sound?  He was even fired from Apple, so you could say his behavior is spontaneous, yet he's clearly also extremely conscientious.  It's like every person has clear contradictions in the Big 5.

 

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

It's relevant when it's literally what is being contested (the scientific validity of personality typologies). You're just appealing to more pseudoscience.

I'm appealing to the fact I'm both highly agreeable and highly disagreeable at the same time.  With or without the enneagram, I still fit the description of a 7w8.  Forget the enneagram, and try to address how I can be both highly agreeable and highly disagreeable at the same time 

[Carl-Richard]

19 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

Wikipedia:  "Conscientiousness is the personality trait of being careful, or diligent. Conscientiousness implies a desire to do a task well, and to take obligations to others seriously. Conscientious people tend to be efficient and organized as opposed to easy-going and disorderly"

Get up to date on the facets

 

19 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

How exactly is organized/careful the same as confident??

Again, combine the traits High C and Low N. Of course Low N is the most important factor in this case, but C is the best predictor of life success, which definitely affects your self-image.

 

19 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

Wait.. so.. the best film directors, best actors, best CEOs, industry leaders in general, are known for their calmness and agreeability?

Steve Jobs turned Apple into a success because of his high agreeability, and calm demeanour??  You realize how crazy you sound?  He was even fired from Apple, so you could say his behavior is spontaneous, yet he's clearly also extremely conscientious.  It's like every person has clear contradictions in the Big 5.

Again, an ideal leader, as opposed to say a tyrannical leader – one that has their subordinates' best interests in mind (a leader of people). Technology entrepreneurs are leaders of ideas, maybe someone you wouldn't like to work for (*cough* Amazon warehouses *cough*).

 

19 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

I'm appealing to the fact I'm both highly agreeable and highly disagreeable at the same time.  With or without the enneagram, I still fit the description of a 7w8.  Forget the enneagram, and try to address how I can be both highly agreeable and highly disagreeable at the same time 

Again, your mind is poisoned by typologies and their dichotomies. There are no "agreeable types" or "disagreeable types" in Big 5. You're given a standarized score of 0-100 for each trait. You can have a score of 50 – that's not a problem

[integral]

@thisintegrated @Carl-Richard if you both took the big five test you'd probably score of the same and have the exact same result? so the issue is it's to General. Unless we could further narrow things down big six big seven big eight?

Edited June 11, 2022 by integral

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, integral said:

if you both took the big five test you'd probably score of the same and have the exact same result? 

I doubt it. I thought I would score pretty much the same as DocWatts, but our C and N differ by 27% and 34%:

 

1 hour ago, integral said:

so the issue is it's to General. Unless we could further narrow things down big six big seven big eight?

 It's at least not pseudoscience  

[thisintegrated]

9 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Get up to date on the facets

The Big 5 Company (or whoever they are) doesn't decide word definitions.

 

 

9 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Again, your mind is poisoned by typologies and their dichotomies. There are no "agreeable types" or "disagreeable types" in Big 5. You're given a standarized score of 0-100 for each trait. You can have a score of 50 – that's not a problem

But I'm 100 on both disagreeable and agreeable.  50 would mean average/passive on both.  I'm very much disagreeable, and very much agreeable.

 

 

1 hour ago, integral said:

@thisintegrated @Carl-Richard if you both took the big five test you'd probably score of the same and have the exact same result? so the issue is it's to General. Unless we could further narrow things down big six big seven big eight?

I'm an ENTP, meaning I debate with logic.

Carl's an ENFP, meaning he debates with personal feelings (Fi) and citations (Te).

This would likely give us have different results.

[Carl-Richard]

4 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

The Big 5 Company (or whoever they are) doesn't decide word definitions.

Scientists*, not a bunch of quacks trying to sell you something 

 

5 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

50 would mean average/passive on both.

No. It doesn't specify that, unless you can point to something specific.

 

14 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

I'm an ENTP, meaning I debate with logic.

Carl's an ENFP, meaning he debates with personal feelings (Fi) and citations (Te).

This would likely give us have different results.

I only debate MBTI with you, so again, selection bias  

[thisintegrated]

17 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Scientists*, not a bunch of quacks trying to sell you something 

So.. the staff of 16personalities.com are scientists too?

Was Carl Jung even a scientist or just a psychologist??

 

17 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

No. It doesn't specify that, unless you can point to something specific.

Well anyway, my point is the dichotomies could be more polarizing.  "Even" on both extremes should never really happen, yet it seems to be very common.

 

9 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Again, an ideal leader, as opposed to say a tyrannical leader – one that has their subordinates' best interests in mind (a leader of people). Technology entrepreneurs are leaders of ideas, maybe someone you wouldn't like to work for (*cough* Amazon warehouses *cough*).

A good leader is one that gets results.  If Steve wasn't such a dick, and wasn't such a neurotic perfectionist, Apple wouldn't be where it is today.  Directors, too, must be assholes.  They must make the actors do 100 takes, or whatever necessary to achieve their vision.  

 

17 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I only debate MBTI with you, so again, selection bias  

Let's try to discuss, rather than debate.  Debate can get tiring.

The point should not be to win/lose, but to reach a middleground.

The more you win, the more your ego wins, and the more you waste your time.  The goal of these actualization-forum-conversations is, primarily, to overcome the ego, afterall.

Edited June 11, 2022 by thisintegrated

[Gesundheit2]

@Carl-Richard I don't know a lot about the big 5 model either, but I still don't consider it a correct model, let alone useful. In fact, I think it is in a sense harmful to whatever extent people might believe in it, probably just as much as other personality models can be.

Just to give one example, I disagree that there is such a thing as introversion and extroversion. I think that's a false assumption, and the reality underneath introversion is rather a group of people that is typically incapable of passing the social tests (they lack social skills, are incapable of dealing with criticism, they get trolled/bullied easily, etc.), and therefore end up isolated from their peers (age-group) and self-hating. They basically haven't learned from an early age how to cope with their existence among other people. And of course, the opposite is true for the so-called "extroverted" people.

My reasoning behind this is simply because introverts are not really isolated from people. You can verify this by randomly picking anyone who labels themselves an "introvert", or anyone who is classified by any typology model or definition as an "introvert". You will find that all of them will exhibit social behavior in one way or another, with one difference is that it will be in isolation from people's judgements. For example, someone who calls themselves an introvert but then spends most of their time watching YouTube is simply someone who is socializing from a safe place/distance, so that nobody judges/criticizes/trolls/etc. them so their egos can remain intact. So it's not that "introverts" don't like socializing with other people, but rather that they aren't really successful at it, and prefer to cope with that fact through isolation instead. Other behaviors that indicate extroversion in introverts are reading books, listening to music, following sports, following politics, stalking, active social media life, etc.

A truly introverted person would actually spend most of their time meditating, and naturally so, without any force or will. Because that's what introversion means. And anyone who does the opposite and claims introversion is full of shit. But notice the difference here. It's vast. True introverts are not the same as those "puppet" introverts. And all those models fail to even see that.

That's just one thing I disagree on with these models. The truth is that I don't even consider any of them to have any sort of truth to them at all, and that they mostly fall under the self-fulfilling prophecies category, where they only become true if you believe in them and to the extent of strength of that belief, so basically placebo.

The good news, though, is that since all these models are false, then nothing is really set in stones, and everything can be changed/corrected with some willingness and effort. But first, those who want to change need to drop the models, as they are literally a variation of limiting beliefs that is masked as "scientific truth", which doubles the trickiness. Believing in those models actually rather cripples down the individual and removes any real chance for them at reintegrating themselves back into society.

Edited June 11, 2022 by Gesundheit2

[AtheisticNonduality]

@Gesundheit2 There are also introverts that don't just have it as a negative (getting away from people, avoiding annoyance or discomfort) but also as a positive (getting into myself). This isn't necessarily the same thing as meditating all the time though, but is potentially euphoric.

[Carl-Richard]

16 hours ago, Gesundheit2 said:

I don't know a lot about the big 5 model either, but I still don't consider it a correct model, let alone useful. In fact, I think it is in a sense harmful to whatever extent people might believe in it, probably just as much as other personality models can be.

I just think the science vs. pseudoscience distinction is useful. That is my main point.

 

16 hours ago, Gesundheit2 said:

Just to give one example, I disagree that there is such a thing as introversion and extroversion. I think that's a false assumption, and the reality underneath introversion is rather a group of people that is typically incapable of passing the social tests (they lack social skills, are incapable of dealing with criticism, they get trolled/bullied easily, etc.), and therefore end up isolated from their peers (age-group) and self-hating. They basically haven't learned from an early age how to cope with their existence among other people. And of course, the opposite is true for the so-called "extroverted" people.

This goes back to whether personality traits are to be considered as pure descriptions of behavior or as innate qualities that cause behavior. You seem to treat the E/I spectrum as the latter, but I don't think you need to interpret Big 5 that way (unlike say cognitive functions).

 

16 hours ago, Gesundheit2 said:

That's just one thing I disagree on with these models. The truth is that I don't even consider any of them to have any sort of truth to them at all, and that they mostly fall under the self-fulfilling prophecies category, where they only become true if you believe in them and to the extent of strength of that belief, so basically placebo.

The good news, though, is that since all these models are false, then nothing is really set in stones, and everything can be changed/corrected with some willingness and effort. But first, those who want to change need to drop the models, as they are literally a variation of limiting beliefs that is masked as "scientific truth", which doubles the trickiness. Believing in those models actually rather cripples down the individual and removes any real chance for them at reintegrating themselves back into society.

General scientific skepticism aside, an average test-retest correlation of 0.88 for all traits is a serious thing (0.80 is considered "good"). It certainly dwarfs any hints of empirical adequacy produced by MBTI or SD.

[Carl-Richard]

15 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

So.. the staff of 16personalities.com are scientists too?

Was Carl Jung even a scientist or just a psychologist??

16Personalities are confused. They can't decide whether to go for MBTI or Big 5, so they produced a bastard child.

Carl Jung's personality typology was fine 100 years ago. Personality theory has moved on since then.

 

15 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

Well anyway, my point is the dichotomies could be more polarizing.  "Even" on both extremes should never really happen, yet it seems to be very common.

I don't understand what you mean.

 

15 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

A good leader is one that gets results.  If Steve wasn't such a dick, and wasn't such a neurotic perfectionist, Apple wouldn't be where it is today.  Directors, too, must be assholes.  They must make the actors do 100 takes, or whatever necessary to achieve their vision.

Very Orange of you. What about the workers?  

 

15 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

Let's try to discuss, rather than debate.  Debate can get tiring.

The point should not be to win/lose, but to reach a middleground.

The more you win, the more your ego wins, and the more you waste your time.  The goal of these actualization-forum-conversations is, primarily, to overcome the ego, afterall.

I only used that word because you used it first  Regardless, all discussions that touch on one's core principles (in this case epistemology) is at least somewhat about ego, which is not a problem if you recognize it. You've invested a lot of time and thought into MBTI, and you use it every single day, in every other comment you make. It's a part of you, just like my conclusions about MBTI and my general preference for delineating the empirical validity of whatever scientific model is a part of me.

[Gesundheit2]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

I just think the science vs. pseudoscience distinction is useful

Yes. There is data, but it's forced into a certain interpretation (I'm guessing for business agendas). And that's not 100% scientific, so it's pseudoscience.

Quote

This goes back to whether personality traits are to be considered as pure descriptions of behavior or as innate qualities that cause behavior. You seem to treat the E/I spectrum as the former, but I don't think you need to interpret Big 5 that way (unlike say cognitive functions).

Why? What's special about Big 5?

Quote

General scientific skepticism aside, an average test-retest correlation of 0.88 for all traits is a serious thing (0.80 is considered "good"). It certainly dwarfs any hints of empirical adequacy produced by MBTI or SD.

Awesome going for meta-analysis here!

 

8 hours ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

@Gesundheit2 There are also introverts that don't just have it as a negative (getting away from people, avoiding annoyance or discomfort) but also as a positive (getting into myself). This isn't necessarily the same thing as meditating all the time though, but is potentially euphoric.

Just because some people can cope with lack of social skills better than others does not make it a normal thing.

I think attempting to normalize introversion is part of the problem. It does not address the root problem that needs to be fixed.

"You don't lack social skills. You're just an introvert."

More like: "You don't suck and can't improve. You're just born that way."

I'm all for loving oneself, but that's misplaced self-love and also a bit extreme in my opinion that it becomes harmful.

Edited June 12, 2022 by Gesundheit2

[Carl-Richard]

18 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

Yes. There is data, but it's forced into a certain interpretation (I'm guessing for business agendas). And that's not 100% scientific, so it's pseudoscience.

There is no 100% scientific in your definition.

 

23 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

Why? What's special about Big 5?

It's a dispositional trait model. It's not a cognitive personality model. Dispositional traits are habitual patterns of behavior, thought and emotion. Cognitive functions are internal mental processes that cause behavior, thought and emotion. The former doesn't make a strong case for or against either a purely behaviorist or cognitivist interpretation, unlike the latter. In other words, Big 5 is in principle less concerned about the underlying causal explanations for one's personality than the cognitive functions.

[Gesundheit2]

6 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

There is no 100% scientific in your definition.

There's a difference between force and utility. You can utilize any information in the way you want, that's not unscientific, as long as your interpretation is done according to the scientific method.

https://www.visionlearning.com/en/library/Process-of-Science/49/Data-Analysis-and-Interpretation/154

"Interpretation involves constructing a logical scientific argument that explains the data. Scientific interpretations are neither absolute truth nor personal opinion: They are inferences, suggestions, or hypotheses about what the data mean, based on a foundation of scientific knowledge and individual expertise."

6 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

It's a dispositional trait model. It's not a cognitive personality model. Dispositional traits are habitual patterns of behavior, thought and emotion. Cognitive functions are internal mental processes that cause behavior, thought and emotion. The former doesn't make a strong case for or against either a purely behaviorist or cognitivist interpretation, unlike the latter. In other words, Big 5 is in principle less concerned about the underlying causal explanations for one's personality than the cognitive functions.

So in other words, Big 5 suggests that change is possible, while MBTI suggests the opposite.

[Carl-Richard]

15 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

So in other words, Big 5 suggests that change is possible, while MBTI suggests the opposite.

Omg ? I meant to say: "You seem to treat the E/I spectrum as the latter, but I don't think you need to interpret Big 5 that way (unlike say cognitive functions)."

I mixed up "former" and "latter". Maybe that clears some stuff up.

[Gesundheit2]

3 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Omg ? I meant to say: "You seem to treat the E/I spectrum as the latter, but I don't think you need to interpret Big 5 that way (unlike say cognitive functions)."

I mixed up "former" and "latter". Maybe that clears some stuff up.

Actually, it doesn't. I'm more confused now than before.

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Gesundheit2 said:

Actually, it doesn't. I'm more confused now than before.

Fuck ? 

You said there is no such thing as E/I – it's just social failure and avoidant/internalizing coping strategies etc. Big 5 would have no problems describing those things as E/I. You only found some specific cases or causal mechanisms for E/I.