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

[thisintegrated]

I am a little shocked.  One if the INTJs I've been talking to has turned out to be a Blue!!!!!  (the ultimate betrayal)

It's so weird.  They were seemingly smart, well-educated, multi-lingual, etc. but turns out it's possible to be a real INTJ, living up to the title, yet still have the awareness of an 8-12 year old??

I thought if I simply avoided all the SFs I'd avoid this situation, but there's just way too many Blues !  We're getting overrun !!

Edited June 8, 2022 by thisintegrated

[hyruga]

6 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

I am a little shocked.  One if the INTJs I've been talking to has turned out to be a Blue!!!!!  (the ultimate betrayal)

It's so weird.  They were seemingly smart, well-educated, multi-lingual, etc. but turns out it's possible to be a real INTJ, living up to the title, yet still have the awareness of an 8-12 year old??

I thought if I simply avoided all the SFs I'd avoid this situation, but there's just way too many Blues !  We're getting overrun !!

INTJs are actually very studious but most of them are not open minded so they don't try out new things until they become old. So most of them may have low awareness.

[integral]

4 hours ago, hyruga said:

INTJs are actually very studious but most of them are not open minded so they don't try out new things until they become old. So most of them may have low awareness.

sounds like a possible mistake for ISTJs

[AtheisticNonduality]

15 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

I am a little shocked.  One if the INTJs I've been talking to has turned out to be a Blue!!!!!  (the ultimate betrayal)

Bellew.

 

[thisintegrated]

1 hour ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

Bellew.

 

Oh damn, nice sound design.  Pretty decent, though a bit monotonic, with a weak climax and unorganized structure.

[thisintegrated]

Without knowing MBTI, I might think I'm the problem when I feel like someone's too boring or stupid.

Without Spiral Dynamics, I might think that religion vs atheism is just personal preference.  That one isn't better than the other.  That there are no deeper implications to the fact that someone takes the bibe/quran literally.

 

As a NeTi user, I never needed personal experience to show me there's value in these models.  It was always obvious.  And now, personal experience has completely validated all the theories.  It really is as simple as you imagine it to be.  If MBTI or SD or Enneagram says you're incompatible with someone, then you are.  You can make it work, but it's not worth it.  If someone's a Blue, dump them.

Just something for the Carls of the forum to think about?

Edited June 8, 2022 by thisintegrated

[AtheisticNonduality]

On 6/7/2022 at 9:18 PM, thisintegrated said:

It's so weird.  They were seemingly smart, well-educated, multi-lingual, etc.

By what specific means do you organize people according to smart vs. not-smart and well-educated vs. uneducated? What are your primary examples of smart people that you've known?

[thisintegrated]

17 minutes ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

By what specific means do you organize people according to smart vs. not-smart and well-educated vs. uneducated? What are your primary examples of smart people that you've known?

It's not anything specific.  It's usually lots of little things that add up.  E.g. Errors in basic logic, prioritising feelings over logic, etc.

Like, if I said "I feel that sensors are smarter" you could conclude I'm retarded.  Why?  Not because the statement is incorrect, but because of a number of obvious problems with that statement.  If I considered that to be a good argument/assertion, it would suggest a lot of things about the way I think.

 

• "Because the quran says so"
• "Because pork is haram"
• "Pigs are filthy, so we shouldn't eat them"
• "don't you want to believe in an afterlife"
• "But I feel x"
• "They're bad people"
• "but you can't know that"
• "I have my beliefs, you have yours"
• "God is good, but people are bad, so we need religion as it's God's words [interpreted by the people ..who are bad?]"
• "Without religion people would kill and rape"

Are some failures in reasoning I commonly hear.

Edited June 9, 2022 by thisintegrated

[thisintegrated]

22 hours ago, Loba said:

 

You're Blue?  I'm so sorry to hear that??

 

 

22 hours ago, Loba said:

Inside every demon is a rainbow.

 

I doubt that.  Though maybe there's a demon inside every rainbow?

[AtheisticNonduality]

57 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

It's not anything specific.  It's usually lots of little things that add up.

Yes, but specific examples. Of people you know you'd consider highly intelligent or highly cognitively inept.

[thisintegrated]

14 minutes ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

Yes, but specific examples. Of people you know you'd consider highly intelligent or highly cognitively inept.

Intelligence ime is mostly just the absence of stupidity.  It's the mistakes that are easy to notice.

"When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."

 

But sure, there are plenty of notably smart people.  E.g. Tom Campbell, Andrew Yang, Bashar, Bruce Lipton, Shinzen Young, Jordan Peterson, and you've probably heard all the Yellow/Turquoise examples in Leo's videos.  The first 3 basically don't make mistakes.  Their cognitive abilities are flawless, though sure I still disagree with Tom on some stuff, but he's peak Turquoise and his views are valid in their own way.

Edited June 9, 2022 by thisintegrated

[AtheisticNonduality]

2 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

Bashar

My first thought was Bashar al-Assad, but then I remembered the alien "channeler" guy.

[thisintegrated]

Just now, AtheisticNonduality said:

My first thought was Bashar al-Assad, but then I remembered the alien "channeler" guy.

Bashar al-Assad, of course??

[Carl-Richard]

@thisintegrated

Just from a first person perspective, I simply prefer the feeling of not knowing over illusions of knowledge, which is a tension I feel very often when I engage in MBTI typing, to some extent SD.

However, I've noticed that with the very best models, I don't really have to engage in them consciously, because they're in a sense too obvious, maybe because they're fully ingrained in my thinking, or because they're an integral part of common language, like with Big 5.

For example, when you're describing a person using normal personal adjectives, you can easily siphon each description under a Big 5 category in retrospect (because that is how the model was constructed). However, with MBTI and SD, it feels kinda forced, like my mind is funneled into some stereotypical lines of thought and post-hoc reasoning; square-pegging round holes.

[Gesundheit2]

[thisintegrated]

17 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

@thisintegrated

Just from a first person perspective, I simply prefer the feeling of not knowing over illusions of knowledge, which is a tension I feel very often when I engage in MBTI typing, to some extent SD.

However, I've noticed that with the very best models, I don't really have to engage in them consciously, because they're in a sense too obvious, maybe because they're fully ingrained in my thinking, or because they're an integral part of common language, like with Big 5.

For example, when you're describing a person using normal personal adjectives, you can easily siphon each description under a Big 5 category in retrospect (because that is how the model was constructed). However, with MBTI and SD, it feels kinda forced, like my mind is funneled into some stereotypical lines of thought and post-hoc reasoning; square-pegging round holes.

The N vs S dichotomy isn't super obvious without knowing MBTI, yet it's the single most obvious and defining characteristic once you do know MBTI.

The dichotomies in big 5 are far less meaningful.  Spontaneous vs Conscientious doesn't really tell you anything, and neither does Agreeable/Hostile, nor Stable/Neurotic.

If I know someone's an INTJ, I know how they'll react to my Ne.  I know what makes them happy, and I know what makes them angry.

If I know someone's an ISTJ, I also know how they'll react to my functions, and I would talk to them in a completely different way than how I'd talk to an INTJ. 

 

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

 

My big 5 would be: Oxxxx.  As I'm equal for all the last 4.  

Edited June 9, 2022 by thisintegrated

[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