MBTI is almost useless

[evan]

Finally, in the last few months, I've begun to understand MBTI. There are no logical inconsistencies in my understanding, and I can break down any behavior into functions. The problem is, there is always more than one way to describe a behavior from a functional standpoint. Ne, Fi, Te, Si can solve the same problem that Se, Ti, Fe, Ni can solve. They can explain their thought processes in the same way.

I've mistyped a few of my friends -- for example, I thought one of my friends was ENFP since I met her, and I recently realized she was ENTP. But during our entire friendship, I felt like I completely understood her and her thought processes. I could predict her reactions to other people, to ideas...I "got" her as well as I got anyone (and I pride myself on ability to deeply connect with/understand people). And I thought she was ENFP at the time. The thing is, once I realized she was ENTP, absolutely nothing about my understanding of her changed. The same is true of my INFP friend that I thought was ENFP. Same with my ENTP friend I thought was ESTP.

I can completely connect with people (almost on par with therapists), and I essentially don't use the MBTI framework at all in doing so. If anything, it's hindered my ability since I'm losing information trying to shove an irregular shape into a regular-shaped-hole.

MBTI has practically no application in my life. The only thing I can think of is that it may be helpful for me to explain one person's behavior to another person. Even then, it's a gross oversimplification of total behavior. It says nothing about specific motivation. And honestly, even in using the framework to explain people to each other, I feel that I'm leading them down the wrong path. It certainly isn't enough...

[iwakar]

So you don't feel it has an application for the teaching field? More specifically, as curriculum for teachers?

[Jack Flak]

I approve of this thread. It's only useful if it's useful for you. Abandon it, and don't look back.

[Antisocial one]

If you ask me the only thing that can work in MBTI are those four letters and their strenght. All those function stuff and deep things are nonsense.

[Jack Flak]

If you ask me the only thing that can work in MBTI are those four letters and their strenght. All those function stuff and deep things are nonsense.
QFT although my stance is that the "templates," aka types, mean more than the sum of the preference choices.

[Lateralus]

I couldn't agree more.

[sleepless]

Damn it, I can really relate to your post and in a way I think you are right ><

Still, I would like to consider this from an MBTI perspective: We are both INFJs, and with NiFe we can gain a penetrating understanding of other people that transcends any words and categorizations. But with the Tertiary Temptation, the tendency to fall back on our Ti, we can lose this connection and start typing people categorically instead, for no use. You describe yourself as NiTi, which I find a bit alarming to be honest... We need to stay out of Ti; the third function is nothing you need to "strengthen", rather as you say, it should mostly be used to explain things to others.

Finally, in the last few months, I've begun to understand MBTI. There are no logical inconsistencies in my understanding, and I can break down any behavior into functions. The problem is, there is always more than one way to describe a behavior from a functional standpoint. Ne, Fi, Te, Si can solve the same problem that Se, Ti, Fe, Ni can solve. They can explain their thought processes in the same way.

This I would like to have explained, if you care to...

[Jennifer]

...This I would like to have explained, if you care to...

Yes, more actual discussion and explanation and less, "Oh, you're so right!" and "Oh, you are too!" and "Oh, we are so right, together -- group huggies" would be more informative and useful. ;)

[evan]

So you don't feel it has an application for the teaching field? More specifically, as curriculum for teachers?

It is useful in a macro sense, but applying it to individuals almost guarantees misapplication (unless you are extraordinarily careful, but then you're narrowing your scope so much that you end up not saying much).

If you ask me the only thing that can work in MBTI are those four letters and their strenght. All those function stuff and deep things are nonsense.

I completely disagree. Staying on the level of dichotomies makes misapplication even more likely. Thinking versus Feeling? What a joke. You end up putting things against each other that aren't actually in opposition.

[Antisocial one]

QFT although my stance is that the "templates," aka types, mean more than the sum of the preference choices.

What do you want to say with this?

[Jack Flak]

Yes, more actual discussion and explanation and less, "Oh, you're so right!" and "Oh, you are too!" and "Oh, we are so right, together -- group huggies" would be more informative and useful. ;)
*Tommy Chong* So much negative energy, maannnn. Carpe diem.

[evan]

You describe yourself as NiTi, which I find a bit alarming to be honest... We need to stay out of Ti; the third function is nothing you need to "strengthen", rather as you say, it should mostly be used to explain things to others.

I describe myself as NiTi because in terms of dichotomies I am more of a Thinker than a Feeler (Using the four letters separately, I am INTJ). Thinking is necessary to put bounds on our unbounded internal vision, unless you want the only bounds to be external Feeling sentiment...

See? I can talk MBTI all day, but it's a waste.

[Jennifer]

*Tommy Chong* So much negative energy, maannnn. Carpe diem.

Sorry, i was just lonely cuz I was shut out of the lovin'.
Bitterness becomes me.

Time for martinis!

[Antisocial one]

I completely disagree. Staying on the level of dichotomies makes misapplication even more likely. Thinking versus Feeling? What a joke. You end up putting things against each other that aren't actually in opposition.

What I should have said is that I think that function order in every type is not absolute. I think that people take this part too seriously.

[toonia]

I have a habit of typing people and try to quit from time to time because it can be as limiting as it can be helpful. What I have noticed particularly in groups that all think in terms of MBTI is that the same statements and behaviors are described and justified differently depending on the letter beside the person's name. This is amplified by internet communication because the non-verbal nuance can be imposed on the text to fit underlying assumptions.

Tempers
F's have tempers because they are emotional and express with feelings. They become overwhelmed and reason with their feelings which include anger.

T's have tempers because their emotional worlds are not fully developed or understood, so when they feel, they have trouble expressing and analyzing and end up in a temper.

Cool-headedness:
F's demonstrate unflappability because they are nice and pleasant.

T's demonstrate unflappability because they are detached and objective.

Rudeness:
F's are rude because they take everything personally and express in ways that are emotionally stirring.

T's are rude because they don't care about feelings.

Politeness:
F's are polite because they don't want to hurt anyone's feelings.

T's are polite because they don't want to deal with emotional responses.

[Lateralus]

Yes, more actual discussion and explanation and less, "Oh, you're so right!" and "Oh, you are too!" and "Oh, we are so right, together -- group huggies" would be more informative and useful. ;)
Some of us have discussed this 1000 times already. ;)

[evan]

What I should have said is that I think that function order in every type is not absolute. I think that people take this part too seriously.

Yes. They do take it too seriously. People see 'F' in my type and think of me as somehow a worse Thinker.

Again, MBTI is useful on a large scale -- when you are looking at groups. But you run into problems applying it to individuals. How many times do you see people say "one of us" or "we" when talking about members of their type? It's nonsense.

[evan]

I have a habit of typing people and try to quit from time to time because it can be as limiting as it can be helpful. What I have noticed particularly in groups that all think in terms of MBTI is that the same statements and behaviors are described and justified differently depending on the letter beside the person's name. This is amplified by internet communication because the non-verbal nuance can be imposed on the text to fit underlying assumptions.

Tempers
F's have tempers because they are emotional and express with feelings. They become overwhelmed and reason with their feelings which include anger.

T's have tempers because their emotional worlds are not fully developed or understood, so when they feel, they have trouble expressing and analyzing and end up in a temper.

Cool-headedness:
F's demonstrate unflappability because they are nice and pleasant.

T's demonstrate unflappability because they are detached and objective.

Rudeness:
F's are rude because they take everything personally and express in ways that are emotionally stirring.

T's are rude because they don't care about feelings.

Politeness:
F's are polite because they don't want to hurt anyone's feelings.

T's are polite because they don't want to deal with emotional responses.

Thank you. People just take an interpretation that fits into their framework, except that it isn't their own framework, it's someone else's. They stop thinking for themselves.

Confirmation bias cannot be overcome. We should stop trying to fight it. The people who think they've won out over it are the worst...

[Jack Flak]

Yes. They do take it too seriously. People see 'F' in my type and think of me as somehow a worse Thinker.
I admit it. But not the actual ability of thinking, the way the F will disregard thinking. :devil:

[sleepless]

I describe myself as NiTi because in terms of dichotomies I am more of a Thinker than a Feeler (Using the four letters separately, I am INTJ). Thinking is necessary to put bounds on our unbounded internal vision, unless you want the only bounds to be external Feeling sentiment...
Hm... you think? Maybe I'm naive, but I just see Ti as something that gets in the way... but I haven't made up my mind yet completely.

See? I can talk MBTI all day, but it's a waste.
*sigh* I know. But somehow I'm still caught up in the illusion of it, it's like I need to get done with it first, but then hopefully I can let go of it and come and join you on the other side. ;)

[Jennifer]

Thank you. People just take an interpretation that fits into their framework, except that it isn't their own framework, it's someone else's. They stop thinking for themselves.

How interesting. Now how do we distinguish from people who are just using confirmation bias versus people who ARE thinking through it but come to the same conclusions as the confirmation bias people?

What a meta-thread. It practices the same flaw it's bitching about. That's quite an achievement.

Confirmation bias cannot be overcome. We should stop trying to fight it. The people who think they've won out over it are the worst...

You just want me to agree, don't you? ;)

[entropie]

I am not much of a psychologist and most of the time, it does not intrest me what people like or dislike. Nevertheless I started a very long time ago digging into psychology things. When I came to MBTI, I found it intresting to learn about Intuition and Sensing. The "old hat" that there are Feelers and Thinkers on this world was a clear thing to me, but Intuition and Sensing proved to be a completly new concept to me.

I dont see MBTI or any other system as a set of rules. As it is defined through my very nature, I make my own rules. I try to keep them in reality as much as I can and from time to time I listen to different views on life by other people and try to gather new information.

For me MBTI is less a set of rules but a source for information. It will probably be never possible for me to come up with an own stringent theory, because my view on the world is embedded into its very own conceptional framework. But I am not looking for that, I am rather more concerned with the outcome.

Through the information I gathered through MBTI, I was able to name things in my friends that I have seen before. I myself for example had a hard time in my life to solve the important question to me, if I am more of a rational or a people's person. I choosed, when I was very young to see people as "Blue" or "Red", but I never could make up my mind, what color I was. Eventually I came up with "Green", but this didnt fit into my concept :).

MBTI was somewhat of a relief to me, to find an explanation to things, I sense, but have no clue about what they are. I will never judge a person buy any of the MBTI rules and my behaviour towards people did not change in any way.

But MBTI gave me a clearer view on things in a topic, I am not very good at. To be honest, I hate psychatrists and psychology and I naturally dislike every person dealing with this topics. :) But I am still here, doing psychology.

My advice to dealing with MBTI as a source of new views on things and not as a set of rules, probably will not help you. But then again, I do not think that a human being will ever be able to being filtered 100% through a fitting system and that is because I accept the possibility of free will and the responsibility that bears with it.

[Grayscale]

this goes for most ostensible labels, really

[evan]

I admit it. But not the actual ability of thinking, the way the F will disregard thinking. :devil:

Not all Fs. See, one of the problems with the system is this. Say you're an Ni dominant. Well, you could either be an INTJ or an INFJ. But say you're an Ni dominant who uses Thinking more than Feeling AND prefers Ti/Fe to Te/Fi. Is that just not possible? Well, it's not possible in MBTI, but it surely is possible in real life. They call us INFJs, but we're really 'T's by dichotomy.

Another thing. Say you're an INJ racecar driver. You describe the experience of driving as just being in the moment, feeling and noticing all of the sensory data coming through. You're using Se, yeah? It could even be the state in which you're most comfortable. You could be "better" at using Se than an ESP. But MBTI calls it the inferior function, and when you tell someone that you're an INJ, they assume you are out of touch with Se. If you really wanted, you could take the time explaining that you're an INJ with a highly developed Se; you could come up with some explanation for why you seem not to fit the system without contradicting the rules. But it's as if we're scrambling for reasons that the system works before questioning the system itself.

How interesting. Now how do we distinguish from people who are just using confirmation bias versus people who ARE thinking through it but come to the same conclusions as the confirmation bias people?

There's no such thing as someone who isn't using confirmation bias. Any coherent viewpoint we pick -- we're gonna flock to reasons that support it and gloss over reasons that don't.

I'm doing it right now, and so is everyone else.

What a meta-thread. It practices the same flaw it's bitching about. That's quite an achievement.

That's kind of a pointless qualm. It's like if I said: "Philosophically, it's impossible to know the Truth as we don't have access to objective information". You'd say I'd be making a claim that I assume is objective about how no claims could be objective. So should I just not open my mouth?

this goes for most ostensible labels, really

True. So we should all think of this as a potentially erroneous labeling system. We need to question it's validity like we would anything else.

In case all y'all haven't noticed: I'm trying to convince myself as much as (if not more than) all of you.

[Jack Flak]

You lost me at INJ race car driver. 100% seriously.

[evan]

You lost me at INJ race car driver. 100% seriously.

I don't know whether or not to take that seriously. Seriously.

:)

[Jack Flak]

When I say seriously: Seriously. When I don't, roll one six-sided die. If the result is "6": Seriously.

[Jennifer]

Not all Fs. See, one of the problems with the system is this. Say you're an Ni dominant. Well, you could either be an INTJ or an INFJ. But say you're an Ni dominant who uses Thinking more than Feeling AND prefers Ti/Fe to Te/Fi. Is that just not possible? Well, it's not possible in MBTI, but it surely is possible in real life. They call us INFJs, but we're really 'T's by dichotomy.

I don't know. Aren't there similar situations where generalizations are still useful? (Such as distinguishing between "white" people and "black" ones or other cultures, in order to determine probabilities of particular genetic differences?)

For, for example, just because some white people can still get sickle-cell anemia doesn't mean the generalizations (that the disease is more common in black populations) are useless or ill-founded.

People are complex entities. Usually to deal with the complexities, we can make general categories, then deal with deviations. MBTI does the same thing.

I guess your argument is, are the categories truly representative, or are the differentiations actually more of the standard and the MBTI theory itself the artifice.


Another thing. Say you're an INJ racecar driver. You describe the experience of driving as just being in the moment, feeling and noticing all of the sensory data coming through. You're using Se, yeah? It could even be the state in which you're most comfortable. You could be "better" at using Se than an ESP. But MBTI calls it the inferior function, and when you tell someone that you're an INJ, they assume you are out of touch with Se.

Not if they know you.
It's merely a baseline.

It says, if you prefer Se so strongly, chances are you're not INJ. Strong Se usually doesn't show up until later in life if it's your inferior. If it shows up early or preexisting your Ni+Je combo, you're probably not INJ!

So yes, now, if you look at an ADULT, you can't entirely predict what their functions will be... due to the natural differentiation that occurs in life experience. But I bet if you look at the child, you will see a strong primary and type is more clear.

If you really wanted, you could take the time explaining that you're an INJ with a highly developed Se; you could come up with some explanation for why you seem not to fit the system without contradicting the rules. But it's as if we're scrambling for reasons that the system works before questioning the system itself.

Maybe that's because of where you're entering the system. Like I said, if you try to analyze ADULTS directly, you're going to run across those problems.

It's one reason why I gave up arguing people's types. Like you insinuated, there are too many variables to know for sure if someone is a deviation from the assumed type or actually another type altogether. The only way to figure it out is a holistic approach that takes everything into account and also looks at growth over time. Which is a rather lengthy process.

How interesting. Now how do we distinguish from people who are just using confirmation bias versus people who ARE thinking through it but come to the same conclusions as the confirmation bias people?

There's no such thing as someone who isn't using confirmation bias. Any coherent viewpoint we pick -- we're gonna flock to reasons that support it and gloss over reasons that don't.

I'm doing it right now, and so is everyone else.

Yes.

So obviously we're discussing confirmation bias that goes beyond the "reasonable" inherent confirmation bias in any discussion, aren't we?

Just like we commonly discuss illogical/misperceptions that are unreasonable, even though we all know that no one has true knowledge of anything and so ANY piece of knowledge is perhaps unreasonable at the base level?

eeep.


That's kind of a pointless qualm. It's like if I said: "Philosophically, it's impossible to know the Truth as we don't have access to objective information". You'd say I'd be making a claim that I assume is objective about how no claims could be objective. So should I just not open my mouth?

See above.

I think it's clear I was distinguishing between the common "inherent" minor bias existing in everything and directly focusing on the extremity of your claim.

In case all y'all haven't noticed: I'm trying to convince myself as much (if not more) than all of you.

Oh. that is undoubtedly because you are an INFJ with a Ti obsession. *snort* :)

or something.

When I say seriously: Seriously. When I don't, roll one six-sided die. If the result is "6": Seriously.

I like the ten-siders better.
Seriously.

[Nocapszy]

It is useful in a macro sense, but applying it to individuals almost guarantees misapplication (unless you are extraordinarily careful, but then you're narrowing your scope so much that you end up not saying much).



I completely disagree. Staying on the level of dichotomies makes misapplication even more likely. Thinking versus Feeling? What a joke. You end up putting things against each other that aren't actually in opposition.

See note at rivalry.
Its not a contrast noobs.

Listen to dissonance.

[evan]

I don't know. Aren't there similar situations where generalizations are still useful? (Such as distinguishing between "white" people and "black" ones or other cultures, in order to determine probabilities of particular genetic differences?)

For, for example, just because some white people can still get sickle-cell anemia doesn't mean the generalizations (that the disease is more common in black populations) are useless or ill-founded.

People are complex entities. Usually to deal with the complexities, we can make general categories, then deal with deviations. MBTI does the same thing.

I agree with what you're saying. Generalities are useful when you're talking about general people. But when you go to the individual level, you're not talking about averages or norms or whatever. I'm saying, MBTI doesn't really DO anything on the individual level. It takes almost as much work to apply it and account for all inconsistencies as it does to just throw out the framework and build from the ground up.

I guess your argument is, are the categories truly representative, or are the differentiations actually more of the standard and the MBTI theory itself the artifice.

Yeah. I'm pretty much arguing the latter.


Not if they know you.
It's merely a baseline.

See above (lol). :)

It says, if you prefer Se so strongly, chances are you're not INJ. Strong Se usually doesn't show up until later in life if it's your inferior. If it shows up early or preexisting your Ni+Je combo, you're probably not INJ!

So yes, now, if you look at an ADULT, you can't entirely predict what their functions will be... due to the natural differentiation that occurs in life experience. But I bet if you look at the child, you will see a strong primary and type is more clear.

Maybe that's because of where you're entering the system. Like I said, if you try to analyze ADULTS directly, you're going to run across those problems.

It's one reason why I gave up arguing people's types. Like you insinuated, there are too many variables to know for sure if someone is a deviation from the assumed type or actually another type altogether. The only way to figure it out is a holistic approach that takes everything into account and also looks at growth over time. Which is a rather lengthy process.

I don't think we disagree at all.

So obviously we're discussing confirmation bias that goes beyond the "reasonable" inherent confirmation bias in any discussion, aren't we?

Sure, and I'm saying, on a general level (because applying this to individuals would be losing information, lol, everything fits into this theme), people that use MBTI tend to go beyond "reasonable" inherent confirmation bias.


Oh. that is undoubtedly because you are an INFJ with a Ti obsession. *snort* :)

Undoubtedly :)

I like the ten-siders better.
Seriously.

What does that mean?

[entropie]

Another thing. Say you're an INJ racecar driver. You describe the experience of driving as just being in the moment, feeling and noticing all of the sensory data coming through. You're using Se, yeah? It could even be the state in which you're most comfortable. You could be "better" at using Se than an ESP. But MBTI calls it the inferior function, and when you tell someone that you're an INJ, they assume you are out of touch with Se. If you really wanted, you could take the time explaining that you're an INJ with a highly developed Se; you could come up with some explanation for why you seem not to fit the system without contradicting the rules. But it's as if we're scrambling for reasons that the system works before questioning the system itself.

I aggree with you, but I wanted to expand this. I do not want to defend MBTI, there are no structured theories I obey anyways.

But, if the racecar driver is possibly very much in touch with his Extroverted Sensing. Is it not a logical mistake then to conclude that he is possibly an INJ that it is in touch with his Se, because as per definition of MBTI INJ are this not.

Do you get, what I mean ? According to theory of the MBTI, a Se function is a lowly developed thing in an INJ, what stands and can not be corrupted without destroying the theory.

In my opinion the MBTI is right but it lacks precision. Then again it did never aim for precision, otherwise it would have picked more functions.

When I look at the MBTI, I focus on the main function and then try to break down its possible means towards oneself and the outer world. The INJ race driver could be very possibly a total blind man, who has no Se at all. But after studying a racetrack and driving it for sometime, he has got it in his blood. And then when driving he has hunches or a 6th sense about when a thing is going to happen.

See, I do not try to bend things into MBTI theory. But according to theory, you have your prime function and all others fall in its developed state in a gradient from 1 (main function) to nearly 0 (4th function).

That was meant by theory and you cant just say, someone is pretty good at his 3rd function, because according to theory, this would be his first function.

Do you get what I mean ? I am just picking on the logical inherent true nature here

[evan]

See, I do not try to bend things into MBTI theory. But according to theory, you have your prime function and all others fall in its developed state in a gradient from 1 (main function) to nearly 0 (4th function).


It's obvious that everyone uses Thinking, Feeling, Sensing, and Intuition all the time. Multiple times a second. If the dominant function has a value of 1, I bet the inferior function still has a value of .6+. But it's never applied like that. And even then, some people might have a .8 inferior and a .6 tertiary. Some other people might have a .2 inferior. All you can infer from the type is the dominant function, and the direction of the middle two. That's it. The order is just a trend; you can't apply that part.

[Nocapszy]

It is useful in a macro sense, but applying it to individuals almost guarantees misapplication (unless you are extraordinarily careful, but then you're narrowing your scope so much that you end up not saying much).



I completely disagree. Staying on the level of dichotomies makes misapplication even more likely. Thinking versus Feeling? What a joke. You end up putting things against each other that aren't actually in opposition.

See note at rivalry.
Its not a contrast noobs.

Listen to dissonance.

[entropie]

It's obvious that everyone uses Thinking, Feeling, Sensing, and Intuition all the time. Multiple times a second. If the dominant function has a value of 1, I bet the inferior function still has a value of .6+. But it's never applied like that. And even then, some people might have a .8 inferior and a .6 tertiary. Some other people might have a .2 inferior. All you can infer from the type is the dominant function, and the direction of the middle two. That's it. The order is just a trend; you can't apply that part.

Ok, just wanted to make sure, no rules of the equation are being swallowed :).

When it comes to what you say about, why someone can not have a Ti/Fe connection as opposed to the Te/Fi connection, I aggree with you. That is really, how you understand the functions. The functions in itself are completly made up and obey now natural rules.

So if the MBTI is really thought through, according to theory a Ti/Fe construct would lead an INFJ to be more likely an ENTP.

It is just the question, how far this is applicable for real psychology and how well the makers of MBTI thought this through.

Again according to theory a Ti/Fe construct, accompanied by Ni and Se cant really work, because you have no real perceiving function (if I got this right).

From my point of view, I think the MBTI stands in it correctly under 2 premisses. The 1st it is no science, it is made up. And 2nd you just can see how well you fit into one of the personalities, but you will never fit 100%. The personalities are more like the foundation of your personality of which you build your house on.

[Magic Poriferan]

Arbitrary classifactions can actually be quite handy. What I do agree with though is that too many things about the MBTI or the functions is left undefined. A class system with fuzzy lines and gaping holes is no good.

[evan]

Arbitrary classifactions can actually be quite handy. What I do agree with though is that too many things about the MBTI or the functions is left undefined. A class system with fuzzy lines and gaping holes is no good.

Even with all the lines defined (which they are in my understanding), MBTI really doesn't DO much besides the whole verbal shortcut thing.

[Jack Flak]

Even with all the lines defined (which they are in my understanding), MBTI really doesn't DO much besides the whole verbal shortcut thing.
As stated, if you find it useless, pay it no mind. It helps me IMMENSELY in determining how I will interact with a person--A Real World application.

[evan]

As stated, if you find it useless, pay it no mind. It helps me IMMENSELY in determining how I will interact with a person--A Real World application.

We agree then. If someone finds it useful, they should use it. The application scares the shit out of me, though. Watch out for confirmation bias; that's all I have to say.

I personally don't find it useful; I get people quite well without it.

[toonia]

How interesting. Now how do we distinguish from people who are just using confirmation bias versus people who ARE thinking through it but come to the same conclusions as the confirmation bias people?

What a meta-thread. It practices the same flaw it's bitching about. That's quite an achievement.
I love a good irony, and we people create them a'plenty.

I think there actually is a general way to distinguish between confirmation bias and a conclusion based on analysis. It has to do with recognizing and expressing the nature of the system. MBTI is by its nature an approximate system. Confirmation bias will use the natural flexibility and indistinctness of the system to mold it into preconceived hard, absolute results. The analytical mind will form conclusions that are a natural outgrowth of the system. MBTI is most useful when the fuzziness of its boundaries are kept clear in the mind and are integral to any conclusions based on its principles.

[Jack Flak]

We agree then. If someone finds it useful, they should use it. The application scares the shit out of me, though. Watch out for confirmation bias; that's all I have to say.

I personally don't find it useful; I get people quite well without it.
Moar:

You don't even need a written system to operate the way I do, but it simplifies it. You think "I have met a few people like you before, and when I said something like this, they hit me. I won't say this to you."

[evan]

I love a good irony, and we people create them a'plenty.

I think there actually is a general way to distinguish between confirmation bias and a conclusion based on analysis. It has to do with recognizing and expressing the nature of the system. MBTI is by its nature an approximate system. Confirmation bias will use the natural flexibility and indistinctness of the system to mold it into preconceived hard, absolute results. The analytical mind will form conclusions that are a natural outgrowth of the system. MBTI is most useful when the fuzziness of its boundaries are kept clear in the mind and are integral to any conclusions based on its principles.

I actually don't think MBTI is very fuzzy (or at least it isn't applied that way), which is essentially my problem with it. The only room for fuzziness in the system is how the four functions interact with each other, not within the functions. (I guess this is a pretty nit-picky point; forgive me. It seems we agree anyway.)

As long as the fuzziness is clear (heh, that sounds funny), you're right, it's possible to use the system correctly. Again, and this is really the point of the thread, to actually use it this way seems to take as much work as building a framework from scratch for each person. And I find that I actually do that. MBTI might give me a tiny jumping off point, but not much.

[evan]

Moar:

You don't even need a written system to operate the way I do, but it simplifies it. You think "I have met a few people like you before, and when I said something like this, they hit me. I won't say this to you."

Oh yes. I do this all the time. MBTI is not necessary for this, though. In fact, it might make you think people are different that are actually close to the same. You might NOT see this if the two similar (within a certain trait) people happen to be ISTJ and ENFP for example.

[Magic Poriferan]

Even with all the lines defined (which they are in my understanding)

I still don't think there is enough definition on how we are supposed to perceive "levels" of function usage.


MBTI really doesn't DO much besides the whole verbal shortcut thing.

Well, that's kind of the point. If a fully defined MBTI is useless, then so is animal taxanomy, or conventions of logic, etc...

[evan]

I still don't think there is enough definition on how we are supposed to perceive "levels" of function usage.

There are no "levels" of function usage. There is just function interaction. Maturity comes from frequent use of each function. The functions themselves stay the exact same.

Well, that's kind of the point. If a fully defined MBTI is useless, then so is animal taxanomy, or conventions of logic, etc...

I agree here. It is the point, it's basically the only point. To apply it further is the mistake I see many people making all over this forum. Look at some of the recent threads...

[sleepless]

I never got this from your first post:

The problem is, there is always more than one way to describe a behavior from a functional standpoint. Ne, Fi, Te, Si can solve the same problem that Se, Ti, Fe, Ni can solve. They can explain their thought processes in the same way.

I don't think I have heard this before. Could you explain? (please)

[Athenian200]

I can completely connect with people (almost on par with therapists), and I essentially don't use the MBTI framework at all in doing so. If anything, it's hindered my ability since I'm losing information trying to shove an irregular shape into a regular-shaped-hole.

I fear you're right. But MBTI is such an interesting framework... it's hard to let go of it. I know it doesn't really work as well as my own way of understanding and guessing about people (after several years of trying to make it work), and I'm trying not to use it seriously anymore. I think it might be hard to stop trying to think in terms of it, though.

It's kind of like one of my friends said... you should just view it as a "conceptual toy" to play with, and not take it seriously. I think I'm better off thinking of it that way.

[evan]

I fear you're right. But MBTI is such an interesting framework... it's hard to let go of it. I know it doesn't really work as well as my own way of understanding and guessing about people (after several years of trying to make it work), and I'm trying not to use it seriously anymore. I think it might be hard to stop trying to think in terms of it, though.

It's kind of like one of my friends said... you should just view it as a "conceptual toy" to play with, and not take it seriously. I think I'm better off thinking of it that way.

Yes. This is exactly the way I think about it now.

[ygolo]

I believe the archetypes are more fundamental than a proscribed function-preference order or the use of dichotomies directly. The two-primary functions determine "balanced" archetypes in this system. That is why my most prefered typing scheme is Temperament and Interaction Style yeilding Archetype--if not noticing an Archetype directly.

Still, I am really conflicted about the use of archetypes.

On the one had, I believe that there are "innate universal psychic dispositions that form the substrate from which the basic themes of human life emerge," and that it "is only possible to live the fullest life when we are in harmony with these."

On the other hand, the empericist in me wants "evidence" to back up my beliefs, and the humanist in me wants to not limit people based on stereotypes. The empercist turns the archetypes into sterotypes, and the humanist shatters them.

That's the sort of mindf*cked situation I kept finding myself. I believe, there are deep desires and an active and powerful subconcious. As far as I know, we have yet to be able to capture these in an objectively verifiable schema, and, so far, all attempts to create schema have been dehumanizing.

[entropie]

So if real understanding of people is a woman, then MBTI is like a sex toy :D

Damn you all, you people with a knack for psychology. I will stay in the darkness forever :)

[kyuuei]

Okay... Really?!

People can "What if" all damn day long. "But what if he's driving and it's cool so he's using more Se than Ti at that moment?!" I'm sorry, that didn't make any sense to me. It would still make him a Ti if throughout his life he tends to favor that side.

What if people aren't all the same? what if you can't place people into one of 16 neat little categories? ... People are always somewhat off. I'm an E that enjoys reading quietly in my room, sitting by myself for hours pondering, blah blah blah. There are exceptions to everything, and the world and people are too complex to stop at simple E's and I's, T's and F's, etc. Behavior itself is a generalization.. because people will always react differently to situations based on too many circumstances to even begin to think about and I will save my poor fried brain from attempting such.

MBTI gives a generalization into the way a person might typically think, feel, and react. I just recently learned about it through the friends I have made here, and truly it has helped. I think there is something to it, and I'm optimistic about it's use in daily life. My empathy and my ability to understand and recognize the reasons behind someone's actions have helped me a great deal, and I saw it especially through my ISTJ friend. Not to get too much into a rant, I think that MBTI was worth it even if that were the only thing it ever did for me.

It's not perfect, and no behaviorial method of classifying something a complex as the human mind will be. But it sure does help to have a calculator somtimes when you're doing math.

[Jeffster]

I don't think it's useless but I am kinda tired of it.

[Nocapszy]

Okay... Really?!

People can "What if" all damn day long. "But what if he's driving and it's cool so he's using more Se than Ti at that moment?!" I'm sorry, that didn't make any sense to me. It would still make him a Ti if throughout his life he tends to favor that side.

What if people aren't all the same? what if you can't place people into one of 16 neat little categories? ... People are always somewhat off. I'm an E that enjoys reading quietly in my room, sitting by myself for hours pondering, blah blah blah. There are exceptions to everything, and the world and people are too complex to stop at simple E's and I's, T's and F's, etc. Behavior itself is a generalization.. because people will always react differently to situations based on too many circumstances to even begin to think about and I will save my poor fried brain from attempting such.

MBTI gives a generalization into the way a person might typically think, feel, and react. I just recently learned about it through the friends I have made here, and truly it has helped. I think there is something to it, and I'm optimistic about it's use in daily life. My empathy and my ability to understand and recognize the reasons behind someone's actions have helped me a great deal, and I saw it especially through my ISTJ friend. Not to get too much into a rant, I think that MBTI was worth it even if that were the only thing it ever did for me.

It's not perfect, and no behaviorial method of classifying something a complex as the human mind will be. But it sure does help to have a calculator somtimes when you're doing math.

I strongly recommend, at least on this forum, that you read the other members' posts before flying off the handle criticizing what you assume their posts will be contain, poorly extrapolating from the titles.

[Eric B]

I believe the archetypes are more fundamental than a proscribed function-preference order or the use of dichotomies directly. The two-primary functions determine "balanced" archetypes in this system. That is why my most prefered typing scheme is Temperament and Interaction Style yeilding Archetype--if not noticing an Archetype directly. That to me is the answer to questions like this. Functions can come in any order of strength, but it's the roles they play that will fit in a proscribed order and ultimately determine the type.

The free test that scored the processes by strength is gone now, but it was there to collect "data" of some sort, so let's see what comes out of that study. It could be some groundbreaking addition to the theory that would help with these best fit type questions!

[kyuuei]

I strongly recommend, at least on this forum, that you read the other members' posts before flying off the handle criticizing what you assume their posts will be contain, poorly extrapolating from the titles.

"Another thing. Say you're an INJ racecar driver. You describe the experience of driving as just being in the moment, feeling and noticing all of the sensory data coming through. You're using Se, yeah? It could even be the state in which you're most comfortable. You could be "better" at using Se than an ESP. But MBTI calls it the inferior function, and when you tell someone that you're an INJ, they assume you are out of touch with Se. If you really wanted, you could take the time explaining that you're an INJ with a highly developed Se; you could come up with some explanation for why you seem not to fit the system without contradicting the rules. But it's as if we're scrambling for reasons that the system works before questioning the system itself."

I wasn't blowing my lid off at all, but definitely not at any title of any post, my response came directly toward this statement here originally posted by the starter of the thread.

He had great points from the beginning and I was sitting back enjoying the debate when he suddenly pulled this number out of left field to me.

To say that someone might not be their type because sometimes circumstances arrise where they act like their opposite isn't justification enough to say the system doesn't work. There are percentages, and as I stated earlier people are too complex to be put into neat little boxes. My post stated simply the following: Where tf did the racecar driver come from?, you're right that people are too complex for a simple 16 digit system, but that doesn't mean MBTI isn't onto something with this or that it's nearly useless at all just because it isn't exact. People aren't exact, so the system can't be.

If I seemed angry at all I apologize? That statement threw me off entirely.

[evan]

I'm not saying the system doesn't work. The system always works. But you have to modify and account for so many aspects of how four functions interact (and which direction the four functions point) that you're basically understanding the person in non-MBTI terms anyway.

If you just say "that person is an ENFP", it's true that you get SOME information from that. But how do you even know you're right about their type? If you're not, you have to work undoing assumptions you've incorrectly held. Even if you are right, how do know how Fi, Te, and Si interact with each other and dominant Ne? How do you know what their "internal standard" is? You don't have direct access to Fi or Si... You have to basically figure out their assumptions about the world from scratch anyway, even if you do know their type. Seriously, have you seen two ENFPs? Just knowing they are ENFPs doesn't really bring you much closer to understanding who they are or what they assume. Peter Griffin from Family Guy is an ENFP, for instance.

For me, at least, I have some sort of unconscious understanding of people anyway. I'm quite talented at intuitively (not in the MBTI sense) knowing how and why people think the way that they do. I don't need MBTI to help me with this. In fact, all MBTI has done for me is hinder this intuitive process.

Again, what made me realize all of this is my ENTP roomate who I thought was ENFP for the entire time I've known her. When I figured out the other day that she's actually ENTP, I realized...I don't actually know her any better. At all. It didn't change anything. I don't even use MBTI to understand people.

The only use I have for the system is verbal shortcuts. I like to use the letter 'T' instead of "conscious deductive true/false judgments". In that sense, the terms are quite useful actually.

Regarding my INJ racecar driver example. I swear to you, some people literally say things like that. It's not the generalizations that I care about even, it's the application of those generalizations.

[entropie]

I don't even use MBTI to understand people.

The only use I have for the system is verbal shortcuts. I like to use the letter 'T' instead of "conscious deductive true/false judgments". In that sense, the terms are quite useful actually.



Do not start bragging about, how good you understand people ! :)

[htb]

If MBTI becomes no more than array of theoretical functions and dichotomies, it won't be helpful. Personalities are verifiable; alphanumeric designations, not so much. As noted above, "macro" application is usually accurate and practically useful.

[kyuuei]

I'm not saying the system doesn't work. The system always works. But you have to modify and account for so many aspects of how four functions interact (and which direction the four functions point) that you're basically understanding the person in non-MBTI terms anyway.

If you just say "that person is an ENFP", it's true that you get SOME information from that. But how do you even know you're right about their type? If you're not, you have to work undoing assumptions you've incorrectly held. Even if you are right, how do know how Fi, Te, and Si interact with each other and dominant Ne? How do you know what their "internal standard" is? You don't have direct access to Fi or Si... You have to basically figure out their assumptions about the world from scratch anyway, even if you do know their type. Seriously, have you seen two ENFPs? Just knowing they are ENFPs doesn't really bring you much closer to understanding who they are or what they assume. Peter Griffin from Family Guy is an ENFP, for instance.

For me, at least, I have some sort of unconscious understanding of people anyway. I'm quite talented at intuitively (not in the MBTI sense) knowing how and why people think the way that they do. I don't need MBTI to help me with this. In fact, all MBTI has done for me is hinder this intuitive process.

Again, what made me realize all of this is my ENTP roomate who I thought was ENFP for the entire time I've known her. When I figured out the other day that she's actually ENTP, I realized...I don't actually know her any better. At all. It didn't change anything. I don't even use MBTI to understand people.

The only use I have for the system is verbal shortcuts. I like to use the letter 'T' instead of "conscious deductive true/false judgments". In that sense, the terms are quite useful actually.

Regarding my INJ racecar driver example. I swear to you, some people literally say things like that. It's not the generalizations that I care about even, it's the application of those generalizations.

I totally side with Jack in saying that if it doesn't work for you, toss it and never look back! MBTI is just one way of doing things.

Lmao the racecar totally threw me off the traintrack! Talk about paper, scissors, sucker-punch-to-the-throat.

I'm optimistic about MBTI because I've had good experiences with it. In your case, it's hindered you in the way you interact with people and your normal intuition. I don't think MBTI replaces character at all.. so use what's strong for you. It wouldn't make it totally useless though.

In my case, my friend would create excuses to not hang out with the rest of us, or the general way he would think or react to something was just beyond my reach. I couldn't understand what was WRONG with this guy! When I got into this, and I realized he was my polar opposite on everything, and got to read a bit more about his personality type, saw what he had written about situations.. it clicked a little lamp on my head and I was capable of understanding more than I did before. It saved a lot of unnecessary feelings and emotions. So for me, it's the tool to use for now.

Any system will have excuses, and exceptions and rules.. but systems are tools, and if they're used the right way they're great. I do agree with you on the whole inferior bit you wrote. I think some people using MBTI will automatically think "ENFP" and forget people are capable of the other side of the spectrum just as easily. I have a friend that's a constant reminder that even though he's an 'I', he's very capable of being an extrovert as well.

[Ilah]

When I look at the strengths of my cognative functions, they don't really match the 16 types. I think I am more NiTi than NiTe, but Ti is not one of the valid choices for Dominate Ni. I can only choose Te or Fe and I am not so good with Fe.

This leads me to serveral questions:
How many of the people who don't think they fit one of the types [including myself] really don't fit a type and how many are misunderstanding the theory or making a mistake because they don't know themselves well?
How rare are the exceptions - the people that don't fit into one of the categories?
What percentage of exceptions can you get and still have a valid theory?

I think I may do a poll for the second question. Not sure about how to answer the others.

Ilah

[Uytuun]

So what if it's simply a fun system to poke around in?

To me, it has simultaneously broadened my perspective (greater understanding of the variety of perspectives/attitudes in people --> more accepting of other "types", better understanding of certain aspects of myself) and narrowed it down (typing people is addictive, but reductive - MBTI is only one framework).

["?"]

Finally, in the last few months, I've begun to understand MBTI. There are no logical inconsistencies in my understanding, and I can break down any behavior into functions. The problem is, there is always more than one way to describe a behavior from a functional standpoint. Ne, Fi, Te, Si can solve the same problem that Se, Ti, Fe, Ni can solve. They can explain their thought processes in the same way.So the question comes, what next? Do I stick around to learn more if possible and to maybe share my insights on expounding on the system, do I take what I have learned and help those now learning, do I go on to some other subject of interest? What is the finality of knowing? Your choice and yours alone because those seem to be the three options.

[Victor]

I think the value of MBTI Central is the people here. We are many and varied from many points on the globe.

And what is most valuable about the people here is the interactions.

It is through the interactions we become present for one another and for ourselves.

We are, each one of us, a present to the other.

And as a bonus, MBTI Central is well run and tolerant.

[Xander]

Reduction process...

I don't need the MBTI labels because I operate just fine without labels... = good for you. No seriously and with no malice.

You are not your MBTI type and your type is not you. Your type is a tool a hypothesis zero against which you can compare yourself and learn. If you already know then it's use is reduced.

Dissonance, you typed your friend after knowing them? That's not a good practice, the additional knowledge can lead you astray. Those who gain an INTJs confidence will begin to see the emotion and the influences and can fail to see how they appear to those they don't know and hence don't type them as INTJ. I fell into that trap trying to type my long term ENFP friend and thought he was something similar to me or when trying to rationalise my type to others. The thing is I am typed as INTP because according to the system of MBTI I am an INTP in classification. However you will not often find me doing things as the hypothesis zero expects. I do however find that by comparing myself to that hypothesis zero that I can explain myself better and also understand some of the under currents of my nature better.

As for the whole being an INFJ who prefers T.. you ever think that's part of your 9 facet? For example most INTPs who I speak to do not balance their types (a couple of notable exceptions like Jack and IF#### (never can recall the number)) who are both 5s and yet seem to understand balance as I do rather than the intensity shown in most examples I've met.

See for me it's never been about learning about the MBTI as a system via books and dissertations but rather by studying people and then finding out their type and seeing how all the Fs I know do one particular thing. This way I've kind of built up my own list of traits which I associate with each type based upon the people I've know of that type (chatting with my father, who's a pro in this kinda stuff, also has helped a great deal).

Something that is consistently put to me in discussion with my father and in general is that a persons type is not a final chapter.. it's more the prologue so you have some context by which to base the book which you are about to read. Sure it may end up that with all the twists and turns that the story takes that the origional prologue means less but it was still the first step into that world and provided the basis for your understanding. That's what the MBTI is supposed to be, a basis for understanding. All the prescriptive thoughts that people insist on propogating only makes things worse. It's about preferences and nuances which can and do contradict the stated preferances. To describe people in full detail would require great works of writing and be almost useless in discussion, except for perhaps Bluewing, hence the MBTI's types are the abbreviated and simplified versions.. the people whom the type begins to descibe are however complex things and should never be considered to be limited by their type.

[evan]

Dissonance, you typed your friend after knowing them? That's not a good practice, the additional knowledge can lead you astray. Those who gain an INTJs confidence will begin to see the emotion and the influences and can fail to see how they appear to those they don't know and hence don't type them as INTJ.

You're saying I should type on less information as opposed to more? That seems worse than my method. Any INTJ is going to have visible Fi, even on the first interaction I have with them. People in general are not much of a mystery to me, I just work out the little kinks over time. There are a few exceptions, but they're hard to fit into the MBTI framework anyway, which means I need the information it would take to get to know them to fit them into MBTI in the first place.

If you type people before you get to know them you're likely going to be wrong about their type in a lot of cases, which is much worse than just being unsure about their type...

As for the whole being an INFJ who prefers T.. you ever think that's part of your 9 facet?

You're saying I should explain why I don't fit cleanly into one arbitrarily defined system by using another arbitrarily defined system? Seems kinda odd.

See for me it's never been about learning about the MBTI as a system via books and dissertations but rather by studying people and then finding out their type and seeing how all the Fs I know do one particular thing.

That's the thing. Not all Fs I know do one particular thing. This is really the entire reason for my post.

A metaphor for you: how do you define the word "game" so that everything that we call a game is classified as one and everything that we don't call a game is not? The point is, there is no clean divide between game and not game just like there is no clean divide between F and T. I guarantee if you made some statement "all Ts I know do this", I would fit. And most of the generalizations I've heard about Fs don't apply to me.

There's a theory about classification called prototype theory. There is some prototype for a concept, and you measure whether or not something fits the concept by how closely it relates to the prototype. In fact, you can have a bunch of prototypes and just measure the closeness to one of them (this has some other name that I'm forgetting). So even that resolves the boundaries for "game". It STILL doesn't resolve the boundaries of T and F.

The truth is, F doesn't necessarily mean F>T and T doesn't necessarily mean T>F. IJs and EPs can have reversed F and T order, and IPs and EJs can have reversed N and S order.

And that's not even my main qualm with the system. I can handle that part. The part I can't handle is watching people apply these "profiles" or whatever generalization they've observed to individuals. Especially if they don't have a coherent view of the system in the first place.

[Xander]

You're saying I should type on less information as opposed to more? That seems worse than my method. Any INTJ is going to have visible Fi, even on the first interaction I have with them. People in general are not much of a mystery to me, I just work out the little kinks over time. There are a few exceptions, but they're hard to fit into the MBTI framework anyway, which means I need the information it would take to get to know them to fit them into MBTI in the first place.

If you type people before you get to know them you're likely going to be wrong about their type in a lot of cases, which is much worse than just being unsure about their type...
Woah there... BIG leap.

Process A, know basics about person. Probably things which are clear now are preferences as according to MBTI. Know a person REALLY well, know the contradictions and label the person by name first. The first case you've possibly picked up enough to type them, second case you may get confused with the presence of contradictory information.
You're saying I should explain why I don't fit cleanly into one arbitrarily defined system by using another arbitrarily defined system? Seems kinda odd.
Balance the black and the white. If I guess right you see that there's a whole plethora of grey in between.. locate yourself within one of the hectars of shade.

Personally I'm not really a typical 9 nor a typical INTP (I'm expecting a few nods when people read that bit :D )... why should I worry? The 9 does actually add F to my setup though as I am trying to empathise to understand people's motivations so I can mediate better. It's not the type defining me but me using the type to communicate that habit in shorthand. You don't really expect INTP 9 to sum me up as a whole?
That's the thing. Not all Fs I know do one particular thing. This is really the entire reason for my post.
Really? You don't get a warm vibe from Fs that Ts tend to lack unless you get really close? Odd.

Realistically the Fs I know don't really appear the same but that vibe is still there. With the Ts I think it's more the "sharpness" that I pick up.. almost like they're ready for the next brain teaser or something... Dom's the exception... he's kinda both but I like exceptions... I don't believe in certainty.
A metaphor for you: how do you define the word "game" so that everything that we call a game is classified as one and everything that we don't call a game is not? The point is, there is no clean divide between game and not game just like there is no clean divide between F and T. I guarantee if you made some statement "all Ts I know do this", I would fit. And most of the generalizations I've heard about Fs don't apply to me.
Congrats you're developed... what's the problem with being an exceptional person?
There's a theory about classification called prototype theory. There is some prototype for a concept, and you measure whether or not something fits the concept by how closely it relates to the prototype. In fact, you can have a bunch of prototypes and just measure the closeness to one of them (this has some other name that I'm forgetting). So even that resolves the boundaries for "game". It STILL doesn't resolve the boundaries of T and F.

The truth is, F doesn't necessarily mean F>T and T doesn't necessarily mean T>F. IJs and EPs can have reversed F and T order, and IPs and EJs can have reversed N and S order.
So your gripe is that people are more diverse than the system allows for? Correct. What's your point? Throw it out? Why? Have you gotten rid of mental arithmatic because you bought a calculator?
And that's not even my main qualm with the system. I can handle that part. The part I can't handle is watching people apply these "profiles" or whatever generalization they've observed to individuals. Especially if they don't have a coherent view of the system in the first place.
So would it be fair to say that your problem lies not with the MBTI but in how it is used... sounds like you should correct the problem and not it's symptom. Just remove their heads... stops the problem immediately.

[evan]

Woah there... BIG leap.

Process A, know basics about person. Probably things which are clear now are preferences as according to MBTI. Know a person REALLY well, know the contradictions and label the person by name first. The first case you've possibly picked up enough to type them, second case you may get confused with the presence of contradictory information.

I completely disagree with the bolded sentence. Even if it were true, you're going to communicate with them holding certain assumptions -- you WILL be a victim to confirmation bias unless you don't apply it at all, in which case it's pointless. It's true that if they happen to fit the archetype extremely well, you'll gain some insight, but if you go around assuming that, you'll underweight information when people don't fit their supposed type well.

The only accurate way to apply MBTI is to hold out on assessment until you know the ins and outs of their personality quite well, but at that point...well, you know their personality quite well.

No matter what, applying the system means applying black and white judgments to a grey reality. Unless you account for the greyness... which takes a lot of information.

It's not the type defining me but me using the type to communicate that habit in shorthand.

This is the one point I agree with, which I've stated multiple times throughout the thread.

Really? You don't get a warm vibe from Fs that Ts tend to lack unless you get really close? Odd.

I do in general. But if I type people based on that correlation, I'll mistype a lot of them. Straight up.

The truth is, Xander, making a mistake on just one person's type leads to consequences that far outweigh the benefits of typing 80% of others correctly.

Congrats you're developed... what's the problem with being an exceptional person?

The truth is, I'm not actually very well developed or mature. My Feeling is quite underdeveloped. The F in my type just led you to a false conclusion. See what I mean?

So your gripe is that people are more diverse than the system allows for? Correct. What's your point? Throw it out? Why? Have you gotten rid of mental arithmatic because you bought a calculator?

So would it be fair to say that your problem lies not with the MBTI but in how it is used... sounds like you should correct the problem and not it's symptom. Just remove their heads... stops the problem immediately.

In reality, though, I don't know anyone who correctly applies the system to the standards I hold (including myself, which is the point of this thread). Just one mistype has far more consequences than the system has to offer. Just one misapplication does the same.

Have you not been listening to me? If you use the system in the correct way, you need to account for the grey. In order to account for the grey, you need tons of information. To get that information, you already get the person in question. So why do you need MBTI?

Either you gain insight from applying the system in a black in white way, or it's pointless. I'm arguing that you don't gain enough insight from the black and white system to outweigh the problems with applying it that way.

[animenagai]

i love MBTI. it gives me tools to really understand where people are coming from. sure i may not be able to categorize them fully, but you can still find useful parts to it.

no offense, but i'm not sure i like a thread like this on a MBTI forum.

[evan]

no offense, but i'm not sure i like a thread like this on a MBTI forum.

I'm sure you don't like it.

And how does this not belong in the forum? It's discussion about MBTI. There are plenty of bullshit threads here; this is certainly not one of them. You don't have to read it if you don't want to.

[Xander]

So why do you need MBTI?
Okay third try.. keep losing my responses.. bloomin logging in and out... stupid stuff!!!

My first use of the MBTI was to try to understand that my way of thinking is not universal. To try to recognise other's thinking and to allow for it.

The MBTI is not about applying labels to people but understanding them. To understand something you have to start with an assumption. That's just how us humans work.

[Xander]

i love MBTI. it gives me tools to really understand where people are coming from. sure i may not be able to categorize them fully, but you can still find useful parts to it.

no offense, but i'm not sure i like a thread like this on a MBTI forum.
If we don't challenge our premises we may stagnate. As long as it's civil what's the harm?

[animenagai]

If we don't challenge our premises we may stagnate. As long as it's civil what's the harm?

i guess you're right. my first instinct was that it's a bit like going to a ball game and saying the sport sucks. MBTI is what got us all together, so saying it's useless did not appeal to me.

[Carebear]

Okay third try.. keep losing my responses.. bloomin logging in and out... stupid stuff!!!

My first use of the MBTI was to try to understand that my way of thinking is not universal. To try to recognise other's thinking and to allow for it.

The MBTI is not about applying labels to people but understanding them. To understand something you have to start with an assumption. That's just how us humans work.

If we don't challenge our premises we may stagnate. As long as it's civil what's the harm?

QFT.

[Delphyne]

The MBTI is not about applying labels to people but understanding them. To understand something you have to start with an assumption. That's just how us humans work.

That´s just how us NPs work. ;) NPs use theories and systems as tools. They grab them, wield them and make adjustments while they try to work with them. It´s not the same with NJs because their function processes act in a different way. First, NJs need to question the validity of a theory or system. Dissonance is not the only NJ here who does this and I don´t think it´s helpful if they try to understand a theory in the NP way. But maybe it helps a little if they see the difference of how their approach differs from the NP approach.

[Jack Flak]

^Haha SUCKERS

[Xander]

i guess you're right. my first instinct was that it's a bit like going to a ball game and saying the sport sucks. MBTI is what got us all together, so saying it's useless did not appeal to me.
But most of them do suck...
;)
That´s just how us NPs work. ;) NPs use theories and systems as tools. They grab them, wield them and make adjustments while they try to work with them. It´s not the same with NJs because their function processes act in a different way. First, NJs need to question the validity of a theory or system. Dissonance is not the only NJ here who does this and I don´t think it´s helpful if they try to understand a theory in the NP way. But maybe it helps a little if they see the difference of how their approach differs from the NP approach.
Ah. Makes sense. Damn.

Well I can only convey as I understand it I guess...

Still. Damn.

[INTJMom]

I personally have found MBTT very useful - life-changing-ly useful - Thank-goodness-I-had-this-or-I-don't-know-where-I'd-be useful.
I don't personally relate to or agree with those who find it useless.
I guess it depends on what one tries to use it for.
I agree with Xander in that I use it to better understand people.
It helps me get along with them better.

[evan]

my first instinct was that it's a bit like going to a ball game and saying the sport sucks.

The only problem with that analogy is that I've been a fan of this ball game for two years, and my opinion of it is just changing now. Plus, I've been on this forum for almost a year now, participating in hundreds of discussions.

Honestly, I mean no one any ill-will. But I feel obligated to share my ideas about the drawbacks to this system -- we all get comfortable here, and it's hard to question our own beliefs.

This is all about cognitive dissonance, really. The more you use a system, the harder it will be to tell yourself that it isn't valid, because doing so means you have to admit to yourself that you may have made many more mistakes than you had originally thought. It's the same idea with pledging a fraternity. A Brother is much more likely to discuss the negative aspects of the system right at the beginning. Once they go through the pledging process, thinking of the system as negative makes them wonder why they went through all the bullshit to join. So to resolve the potential dissonance, they will literally like the fraternity more, because it's more comfortable.

[edcoaching]

This is all about cognitive dissonance, really. The more you use a system, the harder it will be to tell yourself that it isn't valid, because doing so means you have to admit to yourself that you may have made many more mistakes than you had originally thought. It's the same idea with pledging a fraternity. A Brother is much more likely to discuss the negative aspects of the system right at the beginning. Once they go through the pledging process, thinking of the system as negative makes them wonder why they went through all the bullshit to join. So to resolve the potential dissonance, they will literally like the fraternity more, because it's more comfortable.

So you're talking about the theory as it's used in this forum? To me the test is real life. The more I use it as a tool for bringing understanding and change to teams and schools, and the more I see it work, the more I think it's a good thing...if it didn't work I'd be the first looking for a different toolkit...

[Aimahn]

delphyne made a great point! when its used as a flexible tool its highly effective IMO. A general guideline to begin to form a template, not some in depth extremely accurate psychoanalytic questionaire that gets to the root of any person. Mix and match it with your natural instincts and observations about a persons personality.

[Nocapszy]

Flexible can turn into flimsy.

[INTJMom]

delphyne made a great point! when its used as a flexible tool its highly effective IMO. A general guideline to begin to form a template, not some in depth extremely accurate psychoanalytic questionnaire that gets to the root of any person. Mix and match it with your natural instincts and observations about a persons personality.
Exactly.
I agree entirely.

[evan]

Flexible can turn into flimsy.

Fsho.

[Aimahn]

but if you really want to know a person any personally matrice shouldnt be rigidly used. Obviously I don't have the skill necessary to really psycho analyze people in a consistent manner, but I still believe that your actual interactions and personal interpretations should take precedence over what is in most cases a flawed or partial understanding of the matrice.

[Jack Flak]

16-type is a tool, and more of a flashlight than a hammer if you know what you're doing.

[Victor]

The only problem with that analogy is that I've been a fan of this ball game for two years, and my opinion of it is just changing now. Plus, I've been on this forum for almost a year now, participating in hundreds of discussions.

Honestly, I mean no one any ill-will. But I feel obligated to share my ideas about the drawbacks to this system -- we all get comfortable here, and it's hard to question our own beliefs.

This is all about cognitive dissonance, really. The more you use a system, the harder it will be to tell yourself that it isn't valid, because doing so means you have to admit to yourself that you may have made many more mistakes than you had originally thought. It's the same idea with pledging a fraternity. A Brother is much more likely to discuss the negative aspects of the system right at the beginning. Once they go through the pledging process, thinking of the system as negative makes them wonder why they went through all the bullshit to join. So to resolve the potential dissonance, they will literally like the fraternity more, because it's more comfortable.

Quite so.