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

[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.

[Gesundheit2]

@Carl-Richard Big 5 would then fall into the “normalization heuristic” or the normalization fallacy.

I don't think being either an introvert or an extrovert is normal or healthy by any means. I was mostly focused with my critique on the concept of introversion, but I could as easily critique extroverts for being co-dependent and easily distracted. That's not normal nor healthy, either. I could probably potentially make similar critiques to any personality traits that any model proposes. A normal/healthy human being is balanced and well-rounded, and capable of exuding any behavioral pattern without much force or struggling. They are not stuck within one mode of being. You can observe, within yourself and others, that all modes of being exist simultaneously, and that the models are just applying false distinctions based on false dualistic thinking. So, non-duality is most useful here. Though, I'm not even talking about an ideal enlightened sort of human being, really just a normal one. An ideal enlightened human being knows when and where to exercise any behavioral pattern. They have a perfect understanding and are perfectly-attuned to all the inputs they get from the environment on a moment-to-moment basis, so they basically don't exist, and I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about the normal/average person who is confused and addicted to certain patterns. The models, in my opinion, only serve to add more confusion on top of the original confusion.

[Carl-Richard]

@Gesundheit2 Ok, so you're saying that so-called normal personality patterns are just various degrees of pathology? So essentially, anybody who is not enlightened or brutally self-actualized has a personality disorder? Normally, pathology is defined relative to the average baseline of society. If you're defining it relative to spiritual enlightenment ("society is sick"), then that makes sense, but then I guess you're maybe being a bit too idealistic?

This is kinda what thisintegrated does with terms like "logic": make your own idiosyncratic definition and isolate yourself from the linguistic commons. I don't see much point in that, especially if you're truly a skeptic, because all language is merely pragmatic, even your own. Are you going to talk to yourself all day? ?

[AtheisticNonduality]

@Gesundheit2 No, you're still missing it. Despite there being no reason for introversion to be automatically considered pathological, first make an attempt to see the evolutionary function of it. Consider that many of the enlightened shamans would have been separate from their tribes, and that civilizations would have been run by priests, scribes, lawmakers, architects, agriculturalists, none of which would have wasted time developing socialization skills since they had very specific functions. And then even look at modern society, with the top caste of billionaires being autistic white men (Musk, Zuckerberg, etc.) that invested massive amounts of time in technology. Obviously, they are not the healthiest forms that exist, but it shows why it makes sense for a percentage of people to be predisposed toward what is not the social field, to act as rulers, experimentalists, etc.

Now, this second part may seem a little harsh. The reason I didn't find much fascination with the outside world as a child was not because of bullying and the difficulty of it, finding it was weighing me down, but the sense that I was above it and had more important and enjoyable things to do. I might think of the memory I have of in elementary school, questioning why there was something rather than nothing internally while zoning out from the "s apostrophe, apostrophe s" nonsense the teacher and some overzealous student were going over. It wasn't that people were above me, but rather it was the inverse; it was simply that I considered them stupid, insipid, and a waste of time. So, environmentally, the reason was that the outside world was objectively inferior to what I had accessed interiorly, and this is connectable with the innate disposition.

Yet not all explanations would have that level of harshness, since there are a multitude of reasons for why someone would not care to be extraverted, would prefer having function upon society from outside it, would have focus upon intellectual or artistic or philosophical or mechanical or in-other-ways-obsessive interests.

[Gesundheit2]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

@Gesundheit2 Ok, so you're saying that so-called normal personality patterns are just various degrees of pathology? So essentially, anybody who is not enlightened or brutally self-actualized has a personality disorder? Normally, pathology is defined relative to the average baseline of society. If you're defining it relative to spiritual enlightenment ("society is sick"), then that makes sense, but then I guess you're maybe being a bit too idealistic?

That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying the models are false relative to normal people, because they are a misinterpretation of the data.

The data comes supposedly from observing patterns of behaviors, but how these patterns are collected affects the final data, which affects the interpretation. When we come at a scientific study with predefined terms and beliefs, we're automatically biased. All models of reality come with a bunch of cultural distortions based in language. But if we are not aware of those distortions, that can become a problem. And to me, it's obvious that these personality models are not aware of the distortions at all (Thank you, Jung).

Like I said with my critique of introverted people, the introverted person/pattern = someone who does not go out and socialize "enough", does not initiate contact most of the times, does not engage with high enthusiasm, etc. But the reality is that this person actually does all of these things, though in their own "perverted" way so to speak. So this "introverted data" is false, no matter how it is sliced. There isn't an introverted person. There is rather a human who wants and needs to socialize with other humans, but can't do it properly/effectively for some reason (that can be corrected, and that's the important part), so they cope with loneliness and isolation instead because it's safer and easier on their egos.

Note that not a single introverted person would not like to have sex with the hottest person of their preference, unless they're somehow asexual. If you randomly take any one of them and ask them if they would like to become social superstars, they will all say yes. If you ask them about their ideal world, they will describe a certain Uptonian world where their fantasies are actualized. If all of that doesn't prove my point, I don't know what will.

The thing is these introverted people are not abnormal in and of themselves/from birth. They were normal, but got polarized by trolls and bullies, which are the abnormal people (basically devils). See, in my view, trolls and bullies split people into two categories: those who can deal with them, and others who can't. Then polarization happens and after that, it gets complicated.

So introverts and extroverts are not typically "sick". They're rather exactly normal. But the pathological people who are actually sick create them through trauma. That's what the models are ignoring with their normalization fallacy.