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

[Gesundheit2]

@AtheisticNonduality I don't think intellectual interests and inclinations are mutually exclusive with being a social human being. You can do both. A lot of people do both.

The thing is that you can't ignore society, regardless of how you may judge it. Stupid or otherwise, it's the reason why you're alive pursuing whatever you are.

[Carl-Richard]

20 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

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.

I remember learning about this definition of E/I:

Quote

Quiet: The Power of Introverts... author Susan Cain defines introversion and extraversion in terms of preferences for different levels of stimulation—distinguishing it from shyness (fear of social judgment and humiliation).

It makes sense, as shyness could be better explained by neuroticism. So E/I is not necessarily as pathological as you portray it.

Nevertheless, I don't see the big issue with the normalization fallacy in this case. Do you have another example of this?

[Gesundheit2]

3 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I remember learning about this definition of E/I:

It makes sense, as shyness could be better explained by neuroticism. So E/I is not necessarily as pathological as you portray it.

Introversion can also be explained by neuroticism. Introverts don't enjoy it when things are out of their control so they opt out for less stimulating environments because that makes them feel more in control, while extroverts are fine with loss of control, and don't have a problem with chaos. I'm using the word "chaos" intentionally to trigger your thoughts to generalize what I'm saying to the rest of Big 5.

3 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Nevertheless, I don't see the big issue with the normalization fallacy in this case. Do you have another example of this?

Not currently. I will give more examples whenever they come up.

[Carl-Richard]

15 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

Introverts don't enjoy it when things are out of their control

I can't find anything on that. Seems more like conscientiousness ?

Quote

High scores on conscientiousness indicate a preference for planned rather than spontaneous behavior.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits

[Gesundheit2]

12 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I can't find anything on that. Seems more like conscientiousness ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits

And that would be Circular Reasoning, which is exactly why I used the word "chaos". I anticipated you were going to think that way, so I preceded that objection and answered it right away by telling you to generalize the principle I'm suggesting, which is that all of the 5 traits can be reduced down to and explained by neuroticism.

[thisintegrated]

8 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I don't understand what you mean.

If people regularly fall under both e.g. Spontaneous and Conscientious, that's a problem.  

 

8 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Very Orange of you. What about the workers?  

Not at all.  Good actors want their directors to be dicks.  It means they take their job seriously.

 

22 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

And that would be Circular Reasoning, which is exactly why I used the word "chaos". I anticipated you were going to think that way, so I preceded that objection and answered it right away by telling you to generalize the principle I'm suggesting, which is that all of the 5 traits can be reduced down to and explained by neuroticism.

Carl is known for doing this.  It's his inability/refusal to use Ti.

Edited June 12, 2022 by thisintegrated

[Carl-Richard]

48 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

And that would be Circular Reasoning, which is exactly why I used the word "chaos". I anticipated you were going to think that way, so I preceded that objection and answered it right away by telling you to generalize the principle I'm suggesting, which is that all of the 5 traits can be reduced down to and explained by neuroticism.

I reduced shyness to neuroticism. Introversion is not shyness (as explained in the quote I provided).

I didn't reduce introversion to conscientiousness. I said why it was more likely to be conscientiousness than introversion.

 

27 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

If people regularly fall under both e.g. Spontaneous and Conscientious, that's a problem.  

Not really. If you have 50 situations where you're conscientious and 50 where you're not, then you're in the middle of the spectrum.

 

27 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

Not at all.  Good actors want their directors to be dicks.  It means they take their job seriously.

Do you really think if you surveyed people, they would say that they prefer their boss to be a dick?

[Gesundheit2]

6 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I didn't reduce introversion to conscientiousness. I said why it was more likely to be conscientiousness than introversion.

Yeah, but the point is that you're using the Big 5 model to explain the things I'm saying. And by definition, Big 5 defines introversion as something different from conscientiousness, and both different from neuroticism, since they're all different parameters that don't have to be correlated at all. I'm suggesting that all 5 traits stem from neuroticism alone, and that the model is based on false assumptions/dualities that don't have any reality to them on their own without neuroticism.

Edited June 12, 2022 by Gesundheit2

[thisintegrated]

3 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Not really. If you have 50 situations where you're conscientious and 50 where you're not, then you're in the middle of the spectrum.

So if you're 50 for all the Big 5s, what is your type?

[Gesundheit2]

2 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

So if you're 50 for all the Big 5s, what is your type?

Normie, The First.

[thisintegrated]

Just now, Gesundheit2 said:

Normie, The First.

lol

[Carl-Richard]

52 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

So if you're 50 for all the Big 5s, what is your type?

OMG there is no such thing as personality TYPES! Big 5 or no Big 5, this is the case.

I've said this like 7 times now???

 

53 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

Yeah, but the point is that you're using the Big 5 model to explain the things I'm saying. And by definition, Big 5 defines introversion as something different from conscientiousness, and both different from neuroticism, since they're all different parameters that don't have to be correlated at all.

They all do correlate to some amount, but they're the categories that have been found to correlate the least with each other so far (probably weighing other stuff as well).

 

53 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

I'm suggesting that all 5 traits stem from neuroticism alone, and that the model is based on false assumptions/dualities that don't have any reality to them on their own without neuroticism.

You mean to say that the Big 5 trait of neuroticism alone, defined as the severity and frequency of experienced emotions, is what causes the variability in all other Big 5 traits?

[AtheisticNonduality]

3 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

You mean to say that the Big 5 trait of neuroticism alone, defined as the severity and frequency of experienced emotions, is what causes the variability in all other Big 5 traits?

They all cause the variabilities of each other. That doesn't mean they don't exist.

[Carl-Richard]

5 minutes ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

They all cause the variabilities of each other. That doesn't mean they don't exist.

I think he means that they don't exist (or in our big brain pragmatic epistemology: they're not useful).

[AtheisticNonduality]

6 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I think he means that they don't exist (or in our big brain pragmatic epistemology: they're not useful).

The ones that deny the existences of blue and red of course will elevate purple to the status of the only thing true, useful, and observant.

[thisintegrated]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

OMG there is no such thing as personality TYPES! Big 5 or no Big 5, this is the case.

Then it's even more useless than I initially thought.

Clearly types exist.  If two people with the same Big 5 results have no meaningful correlation in their personality then that's a failure of the model.

You'll never confuse an ISFJ with an INTJ.  If you see two INTJs you're gonna see the similarities, and if you know one, you'll know the other.  Types are real, and useful.

Edited June 12, 2022 by thisintegrated

[Carl-Richard]

37 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

If two people with the same Big 5 results have no meaningful correlation in their personality then that's a failure of the model.

It's a meaningful correlation. It's just not as black-and-white as you prefer it to be. That is the cost of eliminating pseudoscience. I'll continue to call it that because it's an accurate term, not because it's demeaning.

[Asayake]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

It's a meaningful correlation. It's just not as black-and-white as you prefer it to be. That is the cost of eliminating pseudoscience. I'll continue to call it that because it's an accurate term, not because it's demeaning.

While not really disagreeing with you, what do you think about the fact that most of the science that's ever been done would be classed as pseudo science today. The literal "founder" of science, Aristotle is a pseudo scientist by todays standards, yet still referred to as the founder of science (atleast in Swedish universities).

[thisintegrated]

3 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

It's a meaningful correlation. It's just not as black-and-white as you prefer it to be. That is the cost of eliminating pseudoscience. I'll continue to call it that because it's an accurate term, not because it's demeaning.

No, it's not.  It's not meaningful in the slightest.  It tells your absolutely nothing about how effective of a leader someone might be, or what kind of a personality someone may have.

If I'm not compatible with someone in some way, I can often attribute it to the fact they're a sensor, for example.  Sensors will think I'm impractical or naiive if I use Ne around them, so it benefits me to know their type when going into a conversation.  This alone is invaluable, and gives me deep insight most never have access to.  Most people would conclude that e.g. someone is "just stupid" or "just too different from me" or "just can't be reasoned with".  But MBTI accounts for all the differences, without you having to judge anyone, or feeling superiority in some way.

 

If I'm an employer and want to hire a team leader, none of the Big 5 results will tell me anything of value.  The same, however, can not be said for MBTI types.  Any affiliative, and non-systematic types (i.e. all the NFs) can immediately be culled, as MBTI allows you to easily identify anyone suitable/unsuitable for a given task, like leadership.

[Carl-Richard]

10 hours ago, Asayake said:

While not really disagreeing with you, what do you think about the fact that most of the science that's ever been done would be classed as pseudo science today. The literal "founder" of science, Aristotle is a pseudo scientist by todays standards, yet still referred to as the founder of science (atleast in Swedish universities).

100 years ago, we had horses and MBTI. Today, we have Teslas and Big 5. Yes, science vs. pseudoscience is defined relative to the current scientific paradigm, so it's constantly changing. It's nevertheless a useful distinction, because it tells you how to best explain and predict how nature behaves.