Do you realize that there can be a completely useless scientifically-valid test, and a completely useful scientifically invalid test? Also - I would advise - not to listen to people who are talking against something they have no idea about.
@@tomwright9904 - stuff like 16 personalities tip their hand that they're just giving you a big 5, by adding another letter (turbulent or assertive in the case of that site) to the MBTI to just make it big 5 >_
Living among people who read too many Horoscope and kept telling me mine, I found MBTI to be actually accurate on describing oneself compared to the crap I lived all my life. However it's bad if people take these waaay too literally. Since no one can be a perfect personality type and if people/companies started selecting workers based on them we would truly be fucked.
Nicely said, especially those last words. Since I discovered the website, I have always loved the tiny details. Just like a game, where when you already appreciate the whole game, all those little details come closer for how perfect the game is. 16personalities does that to me too, how precisely and accurate details about me are true, but I never, *Never* defined myself. The way I see people defining theirselves and ask questions about (other people’s) personalities. It feels wrong. The personalities should be kept to their selves, not the whole wide world. I can imagine that 16personalities/Myers Briggs made this for growth for one self, not to define the whole world in 16 personalities. How the website came to it to this day, I can see that way too many people only want facts like INFP “to get to know someone else.” Also, I have a different personality when I take the test a few years later. I don’t care to share, because sometimes it’s good to keep a few secrets for yourself ;)
No offense but that's bullshit! At least the part about 'no person fitting perfectly into one personality type'. Look, MBTI is a shit system that is very inaccurate, I believe this 100% But MBTI IS NOT the only system that uses the 16 personality types. Yes it's probably one of the first, and the letters used to name each of the types may come from the MBTI (I'm not sure) but MBTI is NOT the only system that uses it. The basic principle on which MBTI is based are the 8 cognitive functions (or the 4 cognitive senses as Carl Jung called them). Basically Jung was like: "hey I noticed that intelligence in the human mind seems to have 4 different aspects to it. I'll call them sensing, intuition, thinking and feeling. Oh and each one has an introverted and extroverted variant." Basically it's like this: Sensing = experiencing sensations and then remembering the sensations we experience. Intuition = Using our memories we got from 'sensing', we plan ahead for the future, considering all possibilities as well deciding what we actually want for our future. Thinking = using inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning and research, in an attempt to determine what is true and what is false. Feeling = Deciding what we value and what we dislike. What is good and what is bad. Carl Jung realised every human being, not only has each of these 4 cognitive senses, but also has 2 variations of them. 1 introverted (coming from yourself/your own mind) and 1 extroverted (coming from other people's minds via human interaction). But interestingly, we each prioritize them differently. Now this is why you are wrong for thinking "No one fits into just one personality": A person can be either left handed or right handed. This is NOT determined by which hand they GROW UP using most when they are young as you may think. It is actually determined by a gene, that makes your mind naturally more focused on one side of your body. A GENE. so genetically you DO either fit into the group of 'left handed' or the group of 'right handed. There is no in between when it comes to your genetics in this case. BUT, yes, if you are born right handed, you can still train your left hand and become ambidextrous, and vica versa, but naturally you DO fit into just one box. Simularly, when it comes to which cognitive functions you prefer, you ARE just one. When it comes to your perception functions, (Ni - Introverted intuition Ne - extroverted intuition Si - introverted sensing Se - extroverted sensing) Your mind either prefers Ni and Se more than Si and Ne OR it prefers Si and Ne more than Ni and Se. Then on top of that you either prefer Ni more than Se or Se more than Ni, and so on. There's no middle ground here, genetically speaking, your mind naturally prefers one or it prefers the other and that's that. The same applies to your judgment functions! (Ti = Introverted Thinking Te = Extroverted Thinking Fi = Introverted Feeling Fe = Extroverted Feeling) Either Ti and Fe or Fi and Te. And so on. Then finally on top of that, you ether prefer your highest perception function more than your highest judgment functions or vice-versa. Lastly there is one final rule: Humans are quite balanced. We are all social creates built for social interaction, but we are also all able to operate independently. This is because, if your MOST preferred cognitive function is introverted, your 2nd most preferred MUST be extroverted. And if your MOST prefered is extroverted your 2nd most MUST be introverted. The rest will alternate accordingly. For example: eiei ieie OR ieie eiei If we follow all these rules about what your mind's natural, 'genetic' biases can be, then in total there are about 16 different ways in which your mind can be naturally 'genetically' biased! Just like you are either right handed or left handed, your mind is naturally biased to one of these 16. So YOU DO naturally fit into just 1 personality type. BUT, Simularly to how a left handed person can practise using their right hand... You can also practise using your weaker cognitive functions, and as a result, all our minds will develop in slightly different ways irregardless of our personality types. This is why 2 people of the same personality type can appear so different to us at first. They developed differently in different environments. But once you take a closer look, you will see they always have the same NATURAL cognitive biases. Remember personality IS NOT just personality type. It's a combination of personality type (nature) and your personal development (nurture). But knowing your type ACCURATELY let's you understand the basics of what you base your every decision on. The MBTI system is incurate because it uses a form of INDUCTIVE reasoning on a natural psychological system that is purely deductive. It also doesn't take into account your nurture and how it affects your view of yourself. A much more accurate system based on the same thing, is CS Joseph's type grid. Check it out and you'll know what your are talking about. Although for his system you have to spend time learning to use it and practise with it before you can accurately type yourself and others.
The MBTI test has helped me put into words my strengths and weaknesses and was fairly accurate (more than I expected) in pinpointing them out to me. I also tried to big 5 which just gave me results that I have a hard time understanding and actually believing. The results that I got have nothing to do with how much I like or dislike them but based on how well I already know myself they did not apply to me from my perspective. MBTI did it better for me, that's all I can say.
Clearly Peterson has a beef with MBTI and most likely that is because he did research using the Big 5 and is frustrated by the fact that, outside of research, people aren't interested in that test. I say it is a beef because he shows a level of close mindedness regarding this topic that isn't characteristic of him. A man who takes Jung that seriously and will consider a carnivore diet shouldn't criticize MBTI for not being perfectly scientifically sound. I bet if he would open his mind he would find MBTI interesting and useful. Plus MBTI has a very different purpose than the Big 5, they are not interchangeable.
Glad to see I’m not the only JP fan that picked up on the bias. I think it borders on a cognitive dissonance, as he gets almost angry about it while not making any clear arguments that break down the specific differences between the two tests. Now I also recognize these are small collection of clips that may have just been poorly chosen by whomever put the video together, but there was no denying that there was emotion behind his words.
@@justinmckee2439 he mentioned that companies liked to use it to indicate predictive performance but that’s not what it’s supposed to be used for at all. You can’t just write off a psychological tool simply because of its use in a field in which it has no place being used in the first place.
Just because it is old doesn't mean it doesn't work. I believe the 2 biggest problems with MBTI are, 1) companies use it incorrectly to gauge skill and/or performance probability. MBTI is not designed for those assessments. 2) Too many practitioners provide invalid interpretations of the MBTI. MBTI is a great tool for helping people understand their preferred method of 1) taking in information, 2) making decisions, 3) interacting with the outside world, and 4) receiving and directing energy. As a life and career coach, MBTI provides me a way creating a common ground for coaching participants. I don't coach people to refer to themselves as INTP, ESFJ, etc... I teach them to understand their preferred methods and how to better adapt to those with differing preferences. You don't have to agree with me, but it has worked for me and everyone that I have coached.
Thank you for sharing this. Not to gauge one’s strengths and weaknesses but to help understand the workings of one’s choices to hopefully make better choices to reach or accomplish a desired outcome.
MBTI is fine, but we need to take in mind that everyone shanges over time and that we develope those 8 cognitives habilities overtime... Not for being an ISFJ there, it means that you are bad at math or that you cannot use intuition. Or that if you are an INTP, you are an non emotional person. MBTI also may help you to discover other things about psicology.
While I agree that the MBTI isn't empirical (built bottom up from studying adjectives in a public way), it does serve a purpose of simplifying individual variations into "blocks". This is similar to ontologies of medical/psychiatric diagnosis where professionals work together to "bundle" signs/symptoms into "types". Perhaps it falls into Folk psychology because it's not quantitative and starts with "Platonic" assumptions about essential types. However, that doesn't negate it's utility for understanding perspectives. I'm surprised by JP's shallow analysis on this, given that he bases much of his own teachings on Carl Jung, who relied on historical / anecdotal research instead of quantitative methods. I would even go as far as to say that you can't entertain the idea of the archetypal shadow without identifying opposing attitudes / tendencies.
Peterson sounds like a food scientist criticizing a popular cookbook because it would make a terrible Food Science Textbook, BUT it was never meant to be that.
I think the issue many psychologists have with the MBTI is precisely the fact that it divides personalities into "blocks", which is no longer a useful way to construe personalities given our current understanding that personality lies on five different personality spectrum (hence the 5 factor model)
@Flakken The big five gives me a sense of the kind of INFJ I am, whereas Myers Briggs gives me more sense of my place in life relative to others. Useful model. Cheers. 👍
as an INTJ with language barrier , it was so hard for me . all my relationship have struggled because they dont understand me . they think im just being difficult. but when i found INTJ from the MB test i was in aw that someone can explain exactly how i am .
INTJ here, For me was very revealing as well and the knowledge I got from it allowed me know the areas of my personality that needed attention, like SE for example. I also took the big 5 five test and in my opinion it puts me in some sort of INTJ spectrum or something like that.
I test the MB Test and INTJ is the result. I think MB test is not accurate at all but it helps to recognize our personality in a way. It is impossible to know the full personality of a person in a short test. Psychologist and other professional is disregarding MB because media is on purpose saying that MB test is accurate. (English is not my first language)
Something that is always over looked when it comes to the MBTI is the cognitive functions. We look only at the 4 letters of each type but not the underlying dominant, auxiliary, tertiary, and inferior functions that make up each type.
@@farhanaditya2647 Yes. Mbti truly is not about the 4 letters, those are just shortend versions of your 2 main functions, and the two others are just the reverse functions. Lemme explain. So a type has diffrent functions those being; Si (sensing introversion) Se (sensing extroversion) Ni (intuitive introversion) Ne (intuitive extroversion) Fi (feeling introversion) Fe (feeling extroversion) Ti (thinking introversion) and Te (thinking extroversion). Lets do INFJ. 1. First lets look at the second and third letter of a type, which in this case is NF. We know the main two functions must be Intuitive and Feeling, so we know the main two functions are Nx/Fx. 2. Then we will look at the first and last letter, which is I and J. Know the J or P will tell us what types of functions are in the type. For J types Feeling or Thinking must be extroverted, while for P types its introverted. This means that Fe and Te (j types) are more outside focused while Fi and Ti (p types) is more inward focused. But if one has an extroverted function, you must also have an introverted one. For J types N or S is introverted while for P types its extroverted. With this info we know the main functions must be Ni and Fe for INFJ's. Know we see the I or E. This says what the dominat function is, not if u are socialy introverted (altough most likley it will). The introverted function out of these two is Ni, while the second function (auxillery) is Fe. 3. Reverse. The last functions are the oppisete. The oppisete of Fe is Ti. Ti is the third function for INFJ's, wich is also called the teritary function. This developes over time, or as a reserve function. The last is the infurior function (the least used and frankley least there) is Se. So an INFJ = Ni Dom - Fe Aux - Ti Tert - Se Inf. What this fully means will be more clear if u search and learn. Thats it!
@@cringenightmareintown4030 there's also the 4 sides of the mind so you can figure out how you act under certain conditions. also each type INFJ for example can develop Ne Fi Te Si they are our shadow functions which are used in 5-8th position after our main 4 function they are unconscious and are usually learned from others / when we are unhealthy. We generally act upon our 4 functions in that exact order because it requires more energy to use lower/other functions but in the end you can have an idea of how others will act or motivated by which action/feeling/thoughts and by how much generally by following MBTI Cognitive Functions but what do I know? I'm an INFJ so my Ti could be making up shit (just like how humanity was once before we built the unknown Ex: logic & facts) imo mostly only the intuitive's can deeply understand MBTi. especially INFJ, INTJ, ENTP.
These are also from Jung's theories. Maybe some day they can also be integrated with MBTI. If its not accurate, maybe it can be used for cross-referencing the more accurate tests.
It's not popular because it hurts noones feelings. In fact it does hurt a lot of feelings. Many people don't like their personality description. Instead it's popular because it's mighty. It doesn't tell me I'm a mix of values on 5 dimensions. It tells me I am one type. That's extremely useful.
My 12 year old had a hospital stay and read about the cognitive functions, when she came back home she successfully predicted all 4 of her grandparents types and subtypes and her two sisters. I guess via that , there's something to it, it's describing propensities well. Pair that with the fruity website it predicted the field every one of the adults in this family (6 of us) would work in and we aren't people who have done more than two jobs in our lifetime
I’m not going to defend the mbti test. But quick question: how can JP say “nobody gets their feeling hurt” when most mbti descriptions do actually include a “weak/problem areas” section for each type? I’m not saying this gunna ruin anyone’s self esteem but even MBTI letter tests still give examples of “weakness” for each type. Now whether or not these “weak areas” are accurate or not is another question. But Jordan makes it sound like they only say positive things about each type. That’s simply not the case. Now I’m not arguing that these tests are accurate or useful just to be clear.
I agree results on the test are neither positive or negative, they are what they are. And if individuals say it describes to a large percent then.. well maybe that still is something to consider. Also remembering all the gray areas in any of these type of testing
I'd say that's a fair assessment. The one thing I'd add is the problem areas of the MBTI type personality descriptions are usually not what would be given by say a definition of the inferior function. What you usually end up with is that thinking types across the board are told they could improve in the feeling department regardless of whether they're a thinking dominant type or not etc.
Arm Chair Typology ok so mbti says thinking types in general have feeling weakness and vulnerability that need to be “improved”. well from a systematized 8 function beebe standpoint: If you are a Te dom not only do you have inferior Fi you will also have demon Fe. If you are a Ti dom not only will you have inferior Fe you will also have demon Fi. So from that standpoint one might say that mbti saying that for example an Entj/ESTJ or INTP/ISTP both have some major problem areas when it comes to feeling stuff in General, would still in a sense be true albeit too vague. But I can’t say they are wrong there is just a lack of detail. The issue is it’s just not as specific as an in depth breakdown of the inferior or demon function the way beebe or others would provide when going into the cognitive functions in depth. Even mbti saying for example non pure thinking types like ISTJ and INTJ having feeling immaturities isn’t exactly wrong either cuz think of Fe trickster and inconsistent Fi child in both. Likewise With Entp and estp Fe child immaturity and Fi trickster shenanigans. It’s just mbti doesn’t go into depth via the function is the issue. But while certainly being vague, it’s not necessarily wrong. Now whether or not one should “improve” these things as you say mbti tells you too, is another question. The word “improve” is tricky to use here because obviously the nature of the unconscious as we’ve explored with beebe and originally Jung is a complex phenomenon that isn’t as simple as “improving” the way you can improve how many push-ups you can do in the gym lol. If you are Fi inferior for example that is the case because your Te is at the forefront and pushes away the feeling as they do not mix well, it’s a water and oil type of deal. So it’s a lot more complicated than “improve” so mbti again leaves something to be desired in terms of depth and detail.
MBTI tries to "balance out" the weaknesses and strengths, while Big 5 doesn't try saying there's some pros to low contentiousness or high neuroticism. TBH I think that's a slight failing of big 5, as i'm unsure why something highly heritable like personality would become common in the population if it were all costs.
Jordan Peterson is fascinating to me. He gets called controversial and causes people to argue but what I see consistently is that he actually never says anything controversial. He says very basic, plain things. I think this allows people to project whatever they are compelled to onto his words. Like here he is not saying anything that’s really debatable. Yes, the MBTI is old. Yes, it’s not predictive. It’s not supposed to be. The Cognitive Functions and systems made from them are not behavioral systems and so do not predict behavior. The MBTI is useful in understanding and respecting differences between ourselves and others and offers pathways and insights to our personal cognitive evolution and achieving the higher potentials we may choose to work towards. If a company is not looking to help people do this, but is attempting to predict behavior, then yes, they should use a different model. I have no particular opinion on Jordan Peterson. He seems likable. But I am impressed by his knack for talking so much and yet saying so little. A knack for restating the obvious in a manner that seems to captivate so many.
I like Dr Peterson, but he’s attacking the MBTI for what it was never intended to be. The reason why corporations purchase a million units of this test is because it works for what it was designed for, helping people understand one another and so get along better.
@@user-vq6ym6qg4j in this case he’s saying what every psychologists say. That’s not just his opinion that’s the opinion of most scientists working in psychology. So yes, that’s fucking obvious but people would do anything to defend popular psychology even if it’s full bullshit
Precisely. Over-chiming cognitive psychology into the corporate world to the exclusion of individual understanding is more of a problem. At least know what the test is supposed to be used for more than anything else. They help with career-building but they’re not 100% conclusive as far as that goes and they’re not even trying to be. Big 5 isn’t that useful.
Idk man. The world and my own personality started making a lot more sense once I took various tests and found out im intj. After I started reading more about Jung and cognitive functions I learned a lot about myself and it was all bc mbti gave me a good direction.
I used both, I use mbti for understanding my strengths and weaknesses and how I could come across but I also used big 5 because I care for scientific stuff and it was very accurate. I use mbti for self improvement and I stayed for the memes
As a big fan of both MBTI and JBP, I'm a bit sad that he is against the tool. However, he also mentioned that MBTI is "perfectly useful" to discuss individual differences and personalities. Because individual differences and personalities matter.
Honestly i was completely down when i found out i'm an infp. It's right on the dot for me. But i found my dream job through mbti. I no longer pursue things that doesn't fit me. I'm working on my weaknesses now that i know what they are (procrastination, over sensitive etc). I became friends with an insensitive person just so I can develop a thicker skin and I'm also taking a math class to improve on my analytical skill. But this is just me of course. I won't defend it.
@@minervastuckinnwo we think but abstractly anything, of no utility most of the times. we listen to sad songs, as we think that helps with soothing our senses. crying is not a bad thing for us, its kinda common and not seen as unhealthy. we crave for something sad, maybe because we want to heal something but that never heals.
i will second what you say. i have huge respect for JP but i do not care what others think or say if the method works for me. and it seems it is doing that greatly.
MBTI balanced with Enneagrams are a good way to describe most people, the problem with mbti and enneagrams (and most personality test) is that most people taking those test aren't truly self-aware and over / underestimate themselves or see themselves in a different light. Someone that is honest with themselves and self-aware will benefit from MBTI and Enneagrams
@@Autonomous_Don eh that's anecdotal but either way people who take these test in the first place do it for fun or self help or to reinforce / justify their egos. Either way ennegrams and mbti are meant to help people develop either way. Most people neglect that, it doesn't help people getting mistyped af from glorified descriptions from blogs or websites.
I see JP's point, I really do, but then I don't use the Big 5 and MBTI to achieve the same objectives. The former is great for a deep-dive on specific facets of my own personality, but I simply can't manage that level of granularity beyond perhaps my immediate family. What I find MBTI does is to give me decent contextual understanding of my place in my wider social and professional network (or at least decent-enough), and to deal with people in a way that - and let's not be coy about this - makes it more likely that I'll get what I want.
It's not just companies. MBTI spreads very successfully in social media and has a large following/community. Big5/OCEAN/HEXACO on the other hand almost has no online presence beyond the companies that sell them and the companies that buy them. Just look at how an MBTI video in youtube has endless comments if you scroll down, whereas OCEAN/HEXACO videos usually only has 3 to 5 comments max. It seems like people are just not interested in OCEAN/HEXACO/Big5.
I feel that the problem with the big 5 is that it's too objective like it really doesn't tell you anything you didn't already know but MBTI as it goes to a more hypothetical real helps people understand the difference of their personality compared to others. The big five tell you what you are MBTI tells you why you might be
@@jose91807 For me it's that the MBTI tells me other people's view of reality and how differently other people's mind operates. This is something that I could have never come to conclusion by myself...
@@ileanaprofeanu7626 You didn't understand the context I was talking about. Jordan Peterson keeps on repeating that MBTI is so much more famous than OCEAN/Big5 because of COMPANIES. He keeps on saying companies in all his videos as if corporate interest is the only thing that fuels interest in the MBTI, whereas almost all videos about MBTI in youtube are not corporate-world related. So he's missing a gigantic piece of the MBTI community. Now, to address your irrelevant comment, science has an even greater following than MBTI and astrology combined (which very likely to include you). People take science as indisputable truth even when all of academia is plagued by irreproducible studies and scholars, scientists and researchers don't know how to deal with the "replication crisis". Yet, humanity still believe in scientific studies as if they were revealed by god... science = the newest religion scientists/researchers = priests/prophets
It's just anecdotal, but I had 5 of my friends and family members take the mbti test and I predicted at least 3, mostly 4 of the indicators for each of them. So at least to me it feels like a good and accurate tool to put peoples personalities into categories.
and of course, the problem is that no empirical data proves that the test can accurately make predictions or serve any real purpose. There is not a single aspect of that test that relies on any scientific basis. It cannot make predictions accurately and consistently, and it serves no purpose to individuals who take it. MBTI is merely an evolved zodiac. Any attempt at putting something as complex as the human mind into categories will fail consistently, as there is simply much more to us than we perceive.
Exactly! As an ENFP I’ve been able to do this with people I know for years... and having watched me do it so much, my ESFJ wife can do it now too (and rarely gets different results). I think the inaccuracies come mostly from people not understanding the test questions or not being aware of themselves enough to answer correctly. There’s also the problem of people just not being honest because they think they want to be a specific type. That last one I think comes from people not understanding the terms. They think it’s negative to be introverted or judging for example... or they don’t want to be seen as too emotional or not thinking... so they steer the test to get the type they think they want... in accordance with their misunderstanding of the terms. Sadly, they don’t understand that the terms have different definitions than what they’re familiar with within the system... and so they sabotage its usefulness in their lives.
Mbti also shows you your bad side, not everybody is winner, or maybe i should say, everybody is losser at the same time, reason of mbti having bad reputation is because of people who don't understand it
I prefer MBTI. It's much more clear. The big Five is very vague. I just took an online test and the MBTI system is much clearer about who you are and much more useful.
Well said! Official MBTI is preferences in external dichotomies for business applications. Nothing more, nothing less. Many people do not realize that Jung is NOT meant to be a cognitive typology system... There is no mention of cognitive anywhere in his book Psychological Types. Also the various Ni, Ne... are TYPES in Jung. The actual cogfxs are stuff like praxis, gnosis, orientation... and those fall within the territory of neuroscience. Nevertheless Jung's original work is a good epistemological categorization to track more intuitively psychic processing in simplified ways. Also Jung's original work is far more flexible than many people think. For instance in Jung's original work you can have types like N-t (ambiverted intuitive with thinking auxiliary) and even the undifferentiated type (the concept of no type in Jung). In my opinion Carl Jung would be overall disgusted by the MBTI community. Speaking of which, as far as Jungian Classical is concerned, Jung was arguably Ti-n (leaning more towards Ti-Ni-Se-Fe by actual Jung terms with top half and bottom half balancing each other out) which it roughly translates to INTJ in MBTI terms... In the enneagram he was arguably a sx 973 Scholar-Priest. You're welcome.
I'm ngl mbti helped me to feel understood and validated for the first time in my life. The Sensor/Intuitive and Introversion/Extroversion metrics work rather well as predictors irl. Presuming that the test results are accurate to the true personality of the person taking it. It's easy as hell to be mistyped and that is the main problem. + when it comes to judging functions (Thinking/Feeling) the lines can get pretty blurry. I am incredibly grateful for it, and I'd love to discuss some more points with Dr. Peterson about it actually haha anyway, after a few years of studying cognitive functions I have found it extremely useful to understand other people + myself in so many ways and it has made my life a lot better. But the big 5 stuff and deeper and traditional psychology are extremely interesting and useful too.
If any tests prove helpful to the individual, so be it, they should be allowed to use them. Be it MBTI or the zodiac signs, if it helps you get through your strife, by all means, go for it. The problem comes when people claim that this test is scientifically accurate (as in being based on the scientific method and is able to make accurate predictions). From Jung, to Briggs, to the MBTI, not a single thing relates in any way to actual science. Such test is not applicable to real professional fields. As a fun giggle with friends and an Instagram bio… Sure... As a determining tool for jobs, in interviews or for salaries or anything relating to the professional fields, no, no, no. It's basically a test that tells you what you think you are... Imagine the same practice done in hospitals.
@@ivantsachev2520 the tests suck... but if you study the functions to find what you are, it’s great. Sure, some people won’t be honest with themselves about how they really are... but that is a failing on their part and not the system. Works great for me.
i agree the test isn’t super accurate, but i think the categories are. for example, i never even took the test and i know with certainty i am an infj based on everything i’ve read and watched. it has helped my discover my strengths and weaknesses, but has also caused much heartache
My whole channel is about MBTI, but he’s right, MBTI is not a tool for predicting work performance, it’s about cognitive preferences. Every type can be productive if they are allowed to work in the way that works best for them. It’s not scientific, BUT it’s a summary. That’s all it is. It’s a summary of your preferences. MBTI is like asking 20 questions about whether you like chocolate, and if you say yes on 15, then it says “you are a chocolate admirer”. I think development of the has been pushed in the wrong direction because of capitalism.
But MBTI is much easier for the average person to understand and determine a lot of things about themselves and others. Honestly, it helped me a lot and made me negotiate better with others depending on their mbti personality. I can’t see it interchangeable with the Big 5, that is a very detailed test and hard to figure out others traits according to it just by knowing people for a short time, but u certainly can get closer to the probable mbti personality by that.
Classic riding of two horses at once. Jordon is awesome. Myers Briggs is interesting. Jordan has dismissed Myers Briggs. Heads have exploded. Phooey!!!! We are allowed to see the world differently from Jordon. Ergo. Jordan is still awesome. Myers Briggs is still interesting.
You can't say that a car doesn't work just because it can't fly, that just falls into absurdity. MBTI is all about how you process data based on the order stack of your cognitive functions and also helps you discover what your weaknesses and strengths are which is the ultimate goal. I believe his opinion is quite misguided but since he is articulate, many people might just recieve it without questioning, lol. Don't get me wrong, while his opinion here had the wrong premise thus invalidating it, he does make good points when discussing other affairs like gender equality and feminism, he is quite hilarious to watch.
When people take “personality” quizzes, they take it as “this is who I am for some cosmic reason and I’ll never change”, they don’t understand that most things about your personality are going to change as you grow. You’re probably not going to have the completely same personality throughout your life. They can help you, they can be fun, etc. But they’re not some all-knowing being that tell you who you truly are, they just reflect what you find important.
I loved getting my MBTI totally nailed down. It's very accurate when you understand how your processes work on an everyday level. But it's not a good indicator of job performance or success--or even the goals you should be setting for yourself. I simply live peacefully with the knowledge of my type and just accept it, but I don't model myself off the stereotypes promoted about it. I do try to compensate for the functions I have difficulty using by workarounds I've devised, though.
Here's how I view the mbti personality test. I think that the questions you answer can easily vary from day to day, same with the big 5. However, once you find your type, its like everything clicks into place. Now, we are all unique people, so obviously it won't be entirely accurate. I view it as more of a starring point in the journey to understand yourself. I took the test several times from a couple different sites before I stumbled onto the personality type that felt right to me, but once I did, heh, it was awesome. But yes, the mbti personality types shouldn't be taken to seriously with yourself, because over time you yourself can change, just as the climate changes. However, the personality types can be helpful to start your journey towards self understanding. I think Jordan says a lot of smart things, but I agree with many people that he's judging it for a purpose that's its not supposed to be used for. All in all, I think the mbti test is best used when acknowledging that its a human made test, so it will, of course, have flaws, but it is best to accept that and move on.
I've taken the MBTI test 3x - (no. 1) immediately after college, (no. 2) 10+ years after the last, and (no. 3) 15 years after the second one and still had same result. =)
You can only take it once. After that it isn't valid. The methodology they use for the test is based on taking it only once and also when you get feed back, then it invalidates the response because of confirmation bias. It may still be indicative but not entirely valid. "Shopping" around to find your type is utter bullshit and means none of them will ever be valid for you. Sorry. I'm quite low in agreeableness and high in intellect (which is separate from IQ)
What I don't like about the Big Five is that it is quite shallow/ weird as a system: It doesn't have the internal theoretical "beauty", the eight cognitive functions model has: The function model seems to imply that every type or function is quite morally neutral in its formal description and doesn't initially make a value judgement. But the Big Five has dimensions in it, which aren't neutral or don't seem to be, especially conscientiousness and neuroticism, the first which is bad when you have less of it and the second which is bad when you have much of it. So The Big Five dimensions often don't range from A to B (with A having strengths and weaknesses and B having diametrically opposed strengths and weaknesses like Ti having areas in which it beats Te but Te also having areas in which it beats Ti) but from good to bad.
It's silly to try explaining a thing you haven't even described yet, so big 5 describing it without a theory explaining it is good. Some things really are just bad (e.g. having a low IQ) so why should a test be designed such that every result has pros and cons?
@@WorthlessWinner My point isn't really that the Big Five is bad in itself, I just think that it doesn't quite achieve the same level of insightful satisfaction a system like mbti does. There is something about personality type systems that is deeply interesting for lots of people, so as much the Big Five may be laudable from a scientific point of view, I think there is also some worth to the personal level on which people find such a system satisfying or not. And at least for me the Big Five has something off-putting uninspiring to it, it seems to just state obvious things which are evident from the questions of the test itself. Like neuroticism, which everybody who has a certain anxiety is painfully aware of.
@@lexiferenczy9695 it works because it's straightforward and has more direct ties to where the traits come from. (neuroticism having strong ties to fight/flight response). MBTI just seems more "beautiful" because it is rather ambiguous in its description (Thinking/Feeling for example, means almost nothing because everyone obviously have both of these traits and they aren't all that different.) MBTI still has a place in this world because I find it very entertaining when a conversation shifts to one about personalities (which is always MBTI). I just don't find it useful because MBTI has a negative tendency of making people unwilling to learn and imitate the traits of other personalities and rather stick to their personality which they portray themselves as, making them act more strongly towards the dimensions, which I'm concerned of because a personality dimension pushed to its edge is never good. I think this probably has to do with the system of grouping people in blocks rather than putting them on a spectrum.
@@haemind Well, the main reason I like mbti/ jungian typology is because it resonated so much with me on a personal level and gave me new insight about myself, which I wouldn't have come up with myself. So I find it quite useful for the main part. But that doesn't mean it is the end of the road of typology. I always thought that mbti probably misses out on other aspects of personality or is wrong in certain aspects, because it's just unlikely that a system like that is perfect as it is and could never be improved upon. But at the moment it seems to be the most insightful typology system we have, at least for me. You are right that people shouldn't constrain themselves with what they think they should be according to their supposed type. But I think that depends on the individual, how good they know themselves. The classical introversion vs extraversion topic is an example for that: Some people will use their notion of them being introverted as an excuse to not broaden their comfort zone even though it would better for their psyche in the long run. But other people will use it responsibly and just recognize that they don't have to always be meeting new people and that it's ok to be alone when it suits them.
In my experience, taking the MBTI in a business context wasn't to gauge productivity potential of individuals - there were other tests for that. Instead, the MBTI tests were used within the context of team interactions (understand yourself and your close co-workers / subordinates / managers). One of the core ideas here, I would think, is that the test would help mitigate conflict from clashing personality types and, ultimately, should help improve the team's overall productivity. It's a shame he didn't touch on that - would have liked to hear more of his elaborated thoughts
I find it odd the big 5 doesn't say much in the way of what people will enjoy, or how they will relate to other people. Like there's nothing actually personal about this personality test. It's more of a professionality test.
I personally have found the results/description of my type to correlate considerably with the big 5. Also I‘ve observed other people to fall well into their type. Even if they do get mistyped it’s correctable by taking multiple tests and the initial type is still close to the actual type.
Note he says "with regards to performance prediction." He also discounted the MBTI and immediately promoted his own personality test, which you have to pay to take, so this makes me a bit cautious. I agree with what he says about it being attractive to people because EVERYONE wins. However, that doesn't mean there isn't some truth in this typology system; it can be helpful as long as you use it as a tool to understand yourself and possibly relationships in your life, and not confine yourself rigidly to your type's description or those of amateur enthusiasts online. A great way to convince people of things is to sprinkle in some powerful truths. Like with all things, I questions things and encourage everyone to do so to; take what works for you and always be open to revising your opinion.
The woman who invented it literally said it was nonsense and she only came up with it to turn her daughter off of her new boyfriend. Anyone with common sense knows it’s a load of rubbish. “I am comfortable talking in large groups.” What groups? What am I talking about? Where are we? What’s riding on what I have to say? Each question can have completely opposite answers depending on the circumstances, which aren’t specified.
I respect Jordan Peterson, but I disagree with him on this. The MBTI can't be easily measured because it is about what goes on inside your head. It is about your thinking process, not your actions. There is a theory behind the MBTI, but there is no theory behind the big 5. The Big 5 is basically just a statistical observation that you can broadly fit all personality questions into 5 groups, and that's it. The MBTI has much more depth, but because of its unmeasurable nature it can't be scientific. I think they are both valid because the Big 5 can be tested but it has no depth. The MBTI has depth, but every person has to judge it for himself because there is no way to prove to another person, for instance, that I'm an introverted feeler rather than an extroverted feeler. Actually I guess I do agree that the MBTI tests suck because it is really hard to make a test which measures introverted feeling/extroverted feeling.
It’s rare to see Peterson craft such a poor argument. “And that’s that.” There is some bias here and it appears even a bit of cognitive dissonance. He’s almost angry about it. Angry in the same way that he gets visibly irritated with the far left which I assume is a bias that makes sense considering his work environment. And possibly that is why he has an ace to grind with MBTI. My experience with MB is that I have found it to be extremely helpful relationally and also in sales to understand how to better communicate with people. However, I do agree that it has little predictive utility for performance, but it is helpful in identifying potential ways to unlock productivity. In regards to the big 5. I haven’t taken one yet and I am eager to learn about it and see my results.
The Myers Briggs test itself is absolute garbage, BUT the idea of cognitive functions and the idea of the 16 personality types is 100% useful and can 100% tell you who you are. The problem is that in determining your personality type out of the 16, most people make use of the Myers briggs system which is probably only accurate about 30% of the time. Using other methods based more on deductive reasoning rather than inductive reasoning (such as the type grid) will produce a much more accurate result, while still using the same personalities and basic principles the Myers briggs system is built on.
MBTI is more or less accurate for different people but it’s definitely accurate for me and a few others I know. It may be pseudoscience but it’s on to something.
@@paddleed6176, have you ever taken the MBTI with family, friends or co-workers? If not, I highly suggest it because of the valuable insights it can provide.
@@biblehistoryscience3530 This. Honestly the dynamic between me and my parents and why I gravitate towards my dad so much makes a ton of sense when looking at MBTI. These personality types may not be truly able to be as narrowed down as MBTI likes to claim but they definitely exist and MBTI makes so much sense out of abstract ideas like personality!
@@paddleed6176 no. MBTI covers what unhealthy and very much un idolized versions of the personality types look like also. Is covers the types of problems they’re likely to deal with and such.
Most psychological metrics/questionnaires are pseudoscientific, with the exception of Big Five and possibly a few others. They’re still fun tho lol. I love enneagram and mbti as leisure activities even if there’s no scientific validity to it
Hello, does anyone here knows if there is a match of jobs for the big five test? like what kind of job should be suited for you if you get a specific result on the big 5 test?
From my arm chair, it appears that Big Five informs us how huge numbers of data points (people) have actually behaved while MBTI shows how a specific person is actually built.
I know this is a late comment but I remember all my psychology profs don't respect MBTI at all. They had a lot of reasons but 1 that was consistent was that it was not made with the intent of studying people in mind. It was made from an existing school of thought in an attempt to validate it by two people who had no background in studying psychology. (Forgive the vagueness. This was a long time ago). It is also the reason why the Big 5 was more respected as it was built over decades by several people who spent their lives studying human behavior and psychology.
What is it that people find appealing about this Jordan Peterson character? The fact that Madison Cawthorn, who only attempted one semester of college and dropped out with all D's, recommends Peterson should be a red flag. The MBTI is NOT A TEST. The person completing the personality inventory is the expert and they decide which 4 letter type is a fit for them. The MBTI personality inventory is one of the most on-target and helpful assessments I've ever taken. It has been a tremendous help to me in better understanding myself and others. To understand and benefit from the MBTI you should go through the process with someone who is MBTI-certified and follows the correct protocol for interpretation after you complete the MBTI personality inventory. This includes 1) an overview of the model which includes definitions of type and types; 2) self-assessment; 3) presentation of reported type; 4) discussion on the match or mis-matches in 3 & 4; 5) provisions of additional information to assist you in determining or affirming your 4 letter type; and 6) provision of information and resources for using your knowledge of the inventory in a way that is of most benefit to you. And - as I tell folks - if it doesn't resonate with you the way it resonates with me that's ok. I'm just sick of the bad press the MBTI has been getting from people who either took the inventory online and tried to interpret it themselves or had a horrible facilitator.
Modern use of MBTI uses a system that is a mix of it and the big five. 16P for example is largely a big 5 test disguised as an MBTI test, but where everyone wins, as he said
When testing for employment, many people will answer the questions based on what they "feel" will be the correct response, completely skewing the results. With that said, I've seen a lot of people who interview well for a job and then turn out to be horrible employees.
I think they're stupid. It's like something goes down. Who do u tell? Confront co worker in civil manner or inform supervisor? Uhhh confront supervisor? Ehhhh what's team work if you guys don't know how to talk to to each other? Oh. Right. Effective communication w/ co workers. What u said! Talk to team player. Supervisor: ehhhh. The hell is wrong w/ u. Whoever told u that they didn't like snitches was lying. Even the most hs of gs never got by w/ out telling on someone. That's how our co thrives. Stepping on toes. Where the hells your bold takes initiative narcissistic takes lead inner psychopath at? Dude idk I just need money
For development, sure, the big five is a much better alternative. And can actually predict results. However MBTI mixed with more jungian infulence is much better suited to describe who you are and how you think.
LMAO I love me some JP but he's too much of an academic to realize the utility of MBTI as a tool. Validation, test-retest, r-factor analysis, Chronbach alpha, etc. Literally nobody cares about this except for academics. Once you learn cognitive functions, you can type yourself perfectly without needing a tool.
Spoken like a true INFJ. Seriously though, I use MBTI virtually everyday. I’m a team leader and run a side business. I am constantly thinking about how my sensor business partner is a good balance to my being an intuitive and the comm challenges that arise. My team is a mix of temperaments, and in every important conversation I’m thinking through how to curb my ENFP tendencies to comm with my ISFJ music director. Literally yesterday I was in a pastoral counseling session helping a couple though some parenting troubles wherein MBTI helped them to understand their response to the situation. I use MBTI all the time. Peterson is maybe on another level, and I’m very interested in learning more about the big 5. But in I/O psych and in marriage, MBTI does in fact work, and very well at that. I’m guessing Peterson doesn’t run a team or pastor people through personal crisis or do pre-marital counseling.
I have studied and observed Hippocrates 4 base temperaments the past 48 years.As a result,I know from a productive and specific skills perspective,I now know exactly what I will get from the person I hire
How come the OCEAN test doesnt incorporate some of the archetypes like in MBTI? Like categorize average personalities. It's difficult explaining my results in comparison with someone else's results without writing a 20 page essay. When we could use archetypes to explain somones rssults. So my results according to ocean could be Mediator on MBTI and my friend's results could be more closesly associated with Engineer on MBTI
I used to say "MBTI isn't that bad because it correlates fairly well with the big 5" but it turns out that's just the MBTI tests, which just use big 5 tests like Neo-Pi-R then derive MBTI from it so of course 16personalities or similarminds results would correlate well with big5. The actual MBTI is a hot mess that you subjectively assign to yourself. I do find it funny that the kind of people who are most likely to take a personality test seem most likely to "fail" it
I think trying to discover different personality types is a waste of time because in reality you can say one person is one way but they can often change and mature and grow up and their personalities can change so that they are no longer an introvert but they can become an extrovert. I think a lot of this is psychobabble bulshit but at least Jordan Peterson is on the right path to debunk these labels from almost 100 years ago
There's been a lot of research on personality change. The rank order doesn't really change that much, no more than IQ does, even if you put in a lot of effort.
@@dangerousliaisons483 - I wouldn't say it can't change. Most work on aging and personaity suggests that there's a few predictable changes as you get older, but those don't alter rank order (you get less extroverted than you were, but the people who started off as less extroverted than average in their generation stay that way). Work on deliberately changing your personality suggests it is possible, but you need to put so much work in for such small changes that I doubt it's practical. Obviously, brain damage can cause uncontrolled personality change too.
This comment suggests you don’t understand MBTI and the cognitive functions that it reveals at all... which is the real issue with the system a large percentage of the time if ya ask me. The terms are defined terms within a closed system... which is admittedly confusing because they are common terms that we use differently than they’re defined here. Being an introvert in the MB system just means the attitude of your most preferred function in an introverted one rather than an extroverted one. It’s a function you consume with rather than create with. Info going in rather than coming out. Nothing about being shy or backward or assertive or loud-mouthed or anything else you might be thinking. People are similarly tripped up by “thinking” which just means you more naturally pick out what works rather than what resonates with your values when making decisions , as opposed to people’s assumptions that maybe thinkers are smart and feelers are emotional cry-babies. By the common meaning, these are all thinking because they’re all brain functions. And finally, many assume judging means they’re judgmental when it simply means they prefer having decisions made over leaving their options open. Learn about it before you bag on it next time, otherwise it’s only you who is wrongly labeling something. It’s a tool that helps people understand themselves if they bother to learn how to use it correctly.
So what does this say about me as a person? On the Myers Briggs I am INTJ. Openness to experience 27 Conscientiousness 74 Extraversion 21 Agreeableness 43 Neuroticism 38
Yeah, I also settled on intj. I wish there was an easy way to say what your results from the big 5 tests were, like it is for the mbti test. Its too hard to insert into Google. No wonder its not popular.
Which is why in combination of the Enneagram, the Big Five and the MBTI, rather than the just the one can provide a framework, not a complete one, but one that is good indicator of what your weaknesses and strengths are, what industry you may prefer a role in and how you tend to operate.
I’ve taken the like a dozen times over the last 10 years I used to get intp all the time then infp for a while then most recently I’ve got entp so it depends what state of mind you’re in whether you when you take it, but I almost always get close to 50% split of introvert/extrovert and 50% split of thinking/feeling but I always get a high percentage of intuition over sensing and high perceiving over judging.
Highly regard Jordan Peterson but on this one he is not entirely correct. I cried when I read the explanation of why I was an INFJ in the Myers Briggs test. It explained me and so many of the difficulties I have experienced in life since I can ever remember. Having studied scientific subjects with the Open University I am aware of how very very careful you have to be reaching conclusions. Absolutely correct. Yet too much of the report on what an ISNF ‘s character is , was too accurate to be fake. You can try to delude yourself but it never works because you know that is exactly what you are doing. I do have an open mind though so here is a question to any expert that just might read my comment. I am a little girl about five years old and having my photo taken. But I am not smiling and am being told to smile by an adult with me who I knew. My inward response, ‘why?’ You see I knew I was smiling ‘inside’ me. I knew an outward smile was something I couldn’t do.
He is a hypocrite. He supposedly upholds morals and is pro-life, yet he is obsessed with IQs and assigns value to people based on those numbers. Not to mention that he screams with narcissism, and elevates himself above those whom he finds unworthy. As for MBTI. If he thinks that the "weaknesses" which the results of the test so bluntly highlight didnt hurt my feelings, then he's dumber than a doorknob.
People are too complex to be typed into 1 personality type. Like I can have most of the traits of an INTJ but what if I also act like an ISTJ. I know about functions but I think humans have way more to offer
But I wish u wud be more explanatory as to why it doesnt work , rather than just sayin it's old. Don't get me wrong , I have immense respect for jordan. I just want to know y.
A lot of copium in this comment section. MBTI is not supported by any clinical psychologists, it’s not just Peterson. It is de facto not a tool people should be using if they are truly interested in personality research, because it is neither reliable nor valid. It is office astrology, and grossly oversimplifies the complexity of personality. The people here saying that the big 5 yielded incorrect results either points to the test being bad, or that you have input wrong information.
I guess a lot of people talking about the MBTI today probably tested themselves with the NERIS type indicator (16personalities). That one is actually a *combination* of MBTI and Big Five, which doesn’t rely on Jungian concepts. So that explains why it seems to be more accurate than the classic MBTI. That said, isn’t it strange to hear Jordan Peterson go *against* Carl Jung’s ideas for a change? 😁
He needs to pay more attention. He left a lot out and just kind of arrogantly made assumptions based on dated info. The 16 personalities is NOT the foundation or the main community for mbti or Jung archetypes.
Did the MBTI tests for a few months now, I am always been a INTP-T for 8 months now and did the test 6 times and one time I got INTP-A but it was only 57% Assertive. It works for me I improved allot of the weaknesses I had. But I know people that take the tests and get every time a different result, I think it could be a identity problem or so, correct me if I’m wrong.
i’ve never seen a take on mbti as pitiful as this. JP missed the entire point of jungian personality types & how they’re actually supposed to be used. not to mention theoretical ignorance & one-sided cultural analysis at play. once you get into stuff like vultology you can’t discount how fascinating understanding how the brain processes information & makes decisions really is.
The Big Five results said I was an extrovert - nope I am an introvert ( people drain me I have to recharge) (my brother is extrovert he gets energy from people). The MBTI describes my personality better. I am going to take the Big Five again to see if I get the same results.
Развлечения
New rule for life: only spring for accurate and scientifically valid tests bucko.
Scientific and christian dogmatic thinking
With that mindset say goodbye to progress.
Do you realize that there can be a completely useless scientifically-valid test, and a completely useful scientifically invalid test?
Also - I would advise - not to listen to people who are talking against something they have no idea about.
And the big 5 (Peterson’s baby) is really that empirical and scientifically-valid, right?
@@Anonymous_Anon882 it's in every psychology 101 book.
MBTI isn't considered very accurate but it does have some correlation to the big 5 but honestly what I really love about MBTI is the memes lol
Same. Idk why it's so funny 🤣
It's all psychobabble
Big5 and Hexaco need more memes
Yeah... that's what I was going to say. Myer briggs does not deal with neuroticism though (in the sense that none of the factors correlate with it).
@@tomwright9904 - stuff like 16 personalities tip their hand that they're just giving you a big 5, by adding another letter (turbulent or assertive in the case of that site) to the MBTI to just make it big 5 >_
You don’t use the tests to find your MBTI type . You study the functions .
That's so true!! All the good knowledge is in the cognitive functions.
Exactly mate, the tests are just a starting point. It takes a lot of research and understanding of yourself to actually know your type
the Harold Grant function stack has never been approved by the official mbti people
I wonder what JBP's opinions on those "jungian presuppositions" really ARE
@Marcus they're not pseudoscientific even slightly.
Living among people who read too many Horoscope and kept telling me mine, I found MBTI to be actually accurate on describing oneself compared to the crap I lived all my life. However it's bad if people take these waaay too literally. Since no one can be a perfect personality type and if people/companies started selecting workers based on them we would truly be fucked.
Well said. Completely agree.
Nicely said, especially those last words.
Since I discovered the website, I have always loved the tiny details. Just like a game, where when you already appreciate the whole game, all those little details come closer for how perfect the game is. 16personalities does that to me too, how precisely and accurate details about me are true, but I never, *Never* defined myself.
The way I see people defining theirselves and ask questions about (other people’s) personalities. It feels wrong. The personalities should be kept to their selves, not the whole wide world. I can imagine that 16personalities/Myers Briggs made this for growth for one self, not to define the whole world in 16 personalities. How the website came to it to this day, I can see that way too many people only want facts like INFP “to get to know someone else.”
Also, I have a different personality when I take the test a few years later. I don’t care to share, because sometimes it’s good to keep a few secrets for yourself ;)
No offense but that's bullshit! At least the part about 'no person fitting perfectly into one personality type'.
Look, MBTI is a shit system that is very inaccurate, I believe this 100% But MBTI IS NOT the only system that uses the 16 personality types. Yes it's probably one of the first, and the letters used to name each of the types may come from the MBTI (I'm not sure) but MBTI is NOT the only system that uses it.
The basic principle on which MBTI is based are the 8 cognitive functions (or the 4 cognitive senses as Carl Jung called them).
Basically Jung was like:
"hey I noticed that intelligence in the human mind seems to have 4 different aspects to it. I'll call them sensing, intuition, thinking and feeling. Oh and each one has an introverted and extroverted variant."
Basically it's like this:
Sensing = experiencing sensations and then remembering the sensations we experience.
Intuition = Using our memories we got from 'sensing', we plan ahead for the future, considering all possibilities as well deciding what we actually want for our future.
Thinking = using inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning and research, in an attempt to determine what is true and what is false.
Feeling = Deciding what we value and what we dislike. What is good and what is bad.
Carl Jung realised every human being, not only has each of these 4 cognitive senses, but also has 2 variations of them. 1 introverted (coming from yourself/your own mind) and 1 extroverted (coming from other people's minds via human interaction).
But interestingly, we each prioritize them differently.
Now this is why you are wrong for thinking "No one fits into just one personality":
A person can be either left handed or right handed. This is NOT determined by which hand they GROW UP using most when they are young as you may think. It is actually determined by a gene, that makes your mind naturally more focused on one side of your body. A GENE. so genetically you DO either fit into the group of 'left handed' or the group of 'right handed. There is no in between when it comes to your genetics in this case.
BUT, yes, if you are born right handed, you can still train your left hand and become ambidextrous, and vica versa, but naturally you DO fit into just one box.
Simularly, when it comes to which cognitive functions you prefer, you ARE just one.
When it comes to your perception functions,
(Ni - Introverted intuition
Ne - extroverted intuition
Si - introverted sensing
Se - extroverted sensing)
Your mind either prefers Ni and Se more than Si and Ne OR it prefers Si and Ne more than Ni and Se. Then on top of that you either prefer Ni more than Se or Se more than Ni, and so on.
There's no middle ground here, genetically speaking, your mind naturally prefers one or it prefers the other and that's that.
The same applies to your judgment functions!
(Ti = Introverted Thinking
Te = Extroverted Thinking
Fi = Introverted Feeling
Fe = Extroverted Feeling)
Either Ti and Fe or Fi and Te. And so on.
Then finally on top of that, you ether prefer your highest perception function more than your highest judgment functions or vice-versa.
Lastly there is one final rule:
Humans are quite balanced. We are all social creates built for social interaction, but we are also all able to operate independently.
This is because, if your MOST preferred cognitive function is introverted, your 2nd most preferred MUST be extroverted. And if your MOST prefered is extroverted your 2nd most MUST be introverted. The rest will alternate accordingly. For example: eiei ieie OR ieie eiei
If we follow all these rules about what your mind's natural, 'genetic' biases can be, then in total there are about 16 different ways in which your mind can be naturally 'genetically' biased! Just like you are either right handed or left handed, your mind is naturally biased to one of these 16.
So YOU DO naturally fit into just 1 personality type.
BUT, Simularly to how a left handed person can practise using their right hand... You can also practise using your weaker cognitive functions, and as a result, all our minds will develop in slightly different ways irregardless of our personality types. This is why 2 people of the same personality type can appear so different to us at first. They developed differently in different environments. But once you take a closer look, you will see they always have the same NATURAL cognitive biases.
Remember personality IS NOT just personality type. It's a combination of personality type (nature) and your personal development (nurture). But knowing your type ACCURATELY let's you understand the basics of what you base your every decision on.
The MBTI system is incurate because it uses a form of INDUCTIVE reasoning on a natural psychological system that is purely deductive. It also doesn't take into account your nurture and how it affects your view of yourself.
A much more accurate system based on the same thing, is CS Joseph's type grid. Check it out and you'll know what your are talking about. Although for his system you have to spend time learning to use it and practise with it before you can accurately type yourself and others.
Fast forward a little bit and now they are selecting only based on skin color and whatever sexual preference they choose for themselves.
I think we already fucked
The MBTI test has helped me put into words my strengths and weaknesses and was fairly accurate (more than I expected) in pinpointing them out to me. I also tried to big 5 which just gave me results that I have a hard time understanding and actually believing. The results that I got have nothing to do with how much I like or dislike them but based on how well I already know myself they did not apply to me from my perspective. MBTI did it better for me, that's all I can say.
Clearly Peterson has a beef with MBTI and most likely that is because he did research using the Big 5 and is frustrated by the fact that, outside of research, people aren't interested in that test. I say it is a beef because he shows a level of close mindedness regarding this topic that isn't characteristic of him. A man who takes Jung that seriously and will consider a carnivore diet shouldn't criticize MBTI for not being perfectly scientifically sound. I bet if he would open his mind he would find MBTI interesting and useful. Plus MBTI has a very different purpose than the Big 5, they are not interchangeable.
Glad to see I’m not the only JP fan that picked up on the bias. I think it borders on a cognitive dissonance, as he gets almost angry about it while not making any clear arguments that break down the specific differences between the two tests. Now I also recognize these are small collection of clips that may have just been poorly chosen by whomever put the video together, but there was no denying that there was emotion behind his words.
@@justinmckee2439 he mentioned that companies liked to use it to indicate predictive performance but that’s not what it’s supposed to be used for at all. You can’t just write off a psychological tool simply because of its use in a field in which it has no place being used in the first place.
Follow your gut🤣
@@dangerousliaisons483 wtf mate go lie down, reading that just hurt my head
Just because it is old doesn't mean it doesn't work. I believe the 2 biggest problems with MBTI are, 1) companies use it incorrectly to gauge skill and/or performance probability. MBTI is not designed for those assessments. 2) Too many practitioners provide invalid interpretations of the MBTI. MBTI is a great tool for helping people understand their preferred method of 1) taking in information, 2) making decisions, 3) interacting with the outside world, and 4) receiving and directing energy.
As a life and career coach, MBTI provides me a way creating a common ground for coaching participants. I don't coach people to refer to themselves as INTP, ESFJ, etc... I teach them to understand their preferred methods and how to better adapt to those with differing preferences. You don't have to agree with me, but it has worked for me and everyone that I have coached.
Thank you for sharing this. Not to gauge one’s strengths and weaknesses but to help understand the workings of one’s choices to hopefully make better choices to reach or accomplish a desired outcome.
@@JOHNNYCRAFT79 you managed to capture my thoughts in a more concise way, thank you. 😂
@@coachg317 Ha thank you 😆 The more I listen to Jordan Peterson, one of the many things he teaches me is how to more succinctly articulate a thing.
What does mbti do better that the big 5 can’t?
MBTI is fine, but we need to take in mind that everyone shanges over time and that we develope those 8 cognitives habilities overtime...
Not for being an ISFJ there, it means that you are bad at math or that you cannot use intuition. Or that if you are an INTP, you are an non emotional person.
MBTI also may help you to discover other things about psicology.
While I agree that the MBTI isn't empirical (built bottom up from studying adjectives in a public way), it does serve a purpose of simplifying individual variations into "blocks". This is similar to ontologies of medical/psychiatric diagnosis where professionals work together to "bundle" signs/symptoms into "types".
Perhaps it falls into Folk psychology because it's not quantitative and starts with "Platonic" assumptions about essential types. However, that doesn't negate it's utility for understanding perspectives.
I'm surprised by JP's shallow analysis on this, given that he bases much of his own teachings on Carl Jung, who relied on historical / anecdotal research instead of quantitative methods. I would even go as far as to say that you can't entertain the idea of the archetypal shadow without identifying opposing attitudes / tendencies.
Peterson sounds like a food scientist criticizing a popular cookbook because it would make a terrible Food Science Textbook, BUT it was never meant to be that.
Usefully indicative. Not to be used religiously!!
@@prettyconvergent9987 INTJ, I have some videos about it on my channel.
I think the issue many psychologists have with the MBTI is precisely the fact that it divides personalities into "blocks", which is no longer a useful way to construe personalities given our current understanding that personality lies on five different personality spectrum (hence the 5 factor model)
@Flakken The big five gives me a sense of the kind of INFJ I am, whereas Myers Briggs gives me more sense of my place in life relative to others. Useful model. Cheers. 👍
as an INTJ with language barrier , it was so hard for me . all my relationship have struggled because they dont understand me . they think im just being difficult. but when i found INTJ from the MB test i was in aw that someone can explain exactly how i am .
Exactly me too, I’m an intj too and when I found out about the 16 personalities thing I felt like wow I’m finally understanding myself
INTJ here, For me was very revealing as well and the knowledge I got from it allowed me know the areas of my personality that needed attention, like SE for example. I also took the big 5 five test and in my opinion it puts me in some sort of INTJ spectrum or something like that.
Infp here and can relate
Well i guess this is the INTJ meeting spot 😕
Hello there 😄😄
I test the MB Test and INTJ is the result.
I think MB test is not accurate at all but it helps to recognize our personality in a way.
It is impossible to know the full personality of a person in a short test.
Psychologist and other professional is disregarding MB because media is on purpose saying that MB test is accurate.
(English is not my first language)
Something that is always over looked when it comes to the MBTI is the cognitive functions. We look only at the 4 letters of each type but not the underlying dominant, auxiliary, tertiary, and inferior functions that make up each type.
there's such a thing??
how do you read those exactly?
@@farhanaditya2647 Yes. Mbti truly is not about the 4 letters, those are just shortend versions of your 2 main functions, and the two others are just the reverse functions. Lemme explain. So a type has diffrent functions those being; Si (sensing introversion) Se (sensing extroversion) Ni (intuitive introversion) Ne (intuitive extroversion) Fi (feeling introversion) Fe (feeling extroversion) Ti (thinking introversion) and Te (thinking extroversion). Lets do INFJ.
1. First lets look at the second and third letter of a type, which in this case is NF. We know the main two functions must be Intuitive and Feeling, so we know the main two functions are Nx/Fx.
2. Then we will look at the first and last letter, which is I and J. Know the J or P will tell us what types of functions are in the type. For J types Feeling or Thinking must be extroverted, while for P types its introverted. This means that Fe and Te (j types) are more outside focused while Fi and Ti (p types) is more inward focused. But if one has an extroverted function, you must also have an introverted one. For J types N or S is introverted while for P types its extroverted. With this info we know the main functions must be Ni and Fe for INFJ's. Know we see the I or E. This says what the dominat function is, not if u are socialy introverted (altough most likley it will). The introverted function out of these two is Ni, while the second function (auxillery) is Fe.
3. Reverse. The last functions are the oppisete. The oppisete of Fe is Ti. Ti is the third function for INFJ's, wich is also called the teritary function. This developes over time, or as a reserve function. The last is the infurior function (the least used and frankley least there) is Se.
So an INFJ = Ni Dom - Fe Aux - Ti Tert - Se Inf. What this fully means will be more clear if u search and learn.
Thats it!
@@cringenightmareintown4030 there's also the 4 sides of the mind so you can figure out how you act under certain conditions. also each type INFJ for example can develop Ne Fi Te Si they are our shadow functions which are used in 5-8th position after our main 4 function they are unconscious and are usually learned from others / when we are unhealthy. We generally act upon our 4 functions in that exact order because it requires more energy to use lower/other functions but in the end you can have an idea of how others will act or motivated by which action/feeling/thoughts and by how much generally by following MBTI Cognitive Functions but what do I know? I'm an INFJ so my Ti could be making up shit (just like how humanity was once before we built the unknown Ex: logic & facts) imo mostly only the intuitive's can deeply understand MBTi. especially INFJ, INTJ, ENTP.
These are also from Jung's theories. Maybe some day they can also be integrated with MBTI.
If its not accurate, maybe it can be used for cross-referencing the more accurate tests.
It's not popular because it hurts noones feelings. In fact it does hurt a lot of feelings. Many people don't like their personality description.
Instead it's popular because it's mighty. It doesn't tell me I'm a mix of values on 5 dimensions. It tells me I am one type. That's extremely useful.
My 12 year old had a hospital stay and read about the cognitive functions, when she came back home she successfully predicted all 4 of her grandparents types and subtypes and her two sisters.
I guess via that , there's something to it, it's describing propensities well.
Pair that with the fruity website it predicted the field every one of the adults in this family (6 of us) would work in and we aren't people who have done more than two jobs in our lifetime
Yea yea or a 12 year old got bamboozled by a superficial system
@@cowboycalicojakk9685it’s not superficial.
I’m not going to defend the mbti test. But quick question: how can JP say “nobody gets their feeling hurt” when most mbti descriptions do actually include a “weak/problem areas” section for each type? I’m not saying this gunna ruin anyone’s self esteem but even MBTI letter tests still give examples of “weakness” for each type. Now whether or not these “weak areas” are accurate or not is another question. But Jordan makes it sound like they only say positive things about each type. That’s simply not the case. Now I’m not arguing that these tests are accurate or useful just to be clear.
I agree results on the test are neither positive or negative, they are what they are. And if individuals say it describes to a large percent then.. well maybe that still is something to consider. Also remembering all the gray areas in any of these type of testing
I'd say that's a fair assessment. The one thing I'd add is the problem areas of the MBTI type personality descriptions are usually not what would be given by say a definition of the inferior function.
What you usually end up with is that thinking types across the board are told they could improve in the feeling department regardless of whether they're a thinking dominant type or not etc.
Arm Chair Typology ok so mbti says thinking types in general have feeling weakness and vulnerability that need to be “improved”.
well from a systematized 8 function beebe standpoint:
If you are a Te dom not only do you have inferior Fi you will also have demon Fe.
If you are a Ti dom not only will you have inferior Fe you will also have demon Fi.
So from that standpoint one might say that mbti saying that for example an Entj/ESTJ or INTP/ISTP both have some major problem areas when it comes to feeling stuff in General, would still in a sense be true albeit too vague. But I can’t say they are wrong there is just a lack of detail.
The issue is it’s just not as specific as an in depth breakdown of the inferior or demon function the way beebe or others would provide when going into the cognitive functions in depth.
Even mbti saying for example non pure thinking types like ISTJ and INTJ having feeling immaturities isn’t exactly wrong either cuz think of Fe trickster and inconsistent Fi child in both.
Likewise With Entp and estp Fe child immaturity and Fi trickster shenanigans.
It’s just mbti doesn’t go into depth via the function is the issue. But while certainly being vague, it’s not necessarily wrong.
Now whether or not one should “improve” these things as you say mbti tells you too, is another question. The word “improve” is tricky to use here because obviously the nature of the unconscious as we’ve explored with beebe and originally Jung is a complex phenomenon that isn’t as simple as “improving” the way you can improve how many push-ups you can do in the gym lol. If you are Fi inferior for example that is the case because your Te is at the forefront and pushes away the feeling as they do not mix well, it’s a water and oil type of deal. So it’s a lot more complicated than “improve” so mbti again leaves something to be desired in terms of depth and detail.
@@EndlessKurtis I literally have hours of video on this... nothing new over here on this channel.
MBTI tries to "balance out" the weaknesses and strengths, while Big 5 doesn't try saying there's some pros to low contentiousness or high neuroticism.
TBH I think that's a slight failing of big 5, as i'm unsure why something highly heritable like personality would become common in the population if it were all costs.
Jordan Peterson is fascinating to me. He gets called controversial and causes people to argue but what I see consistently is that he actually never says anything controversial. He says very basic, plain things. I think this allows people to project whatever they are compelled to onto his words.
Like here he is not saying anything that’s really debatable. Yes, the MBTI is old. Yes, it’s not predictive. It’s not supposed to be. The Cognitive Functions and systems made from them are not behavioral systems and so do not predict behavior.
The MBTI is useful in understanding and respecting differences between ourselves and others and offers pathways and insights to our personal cognitive evolution and achieving the higher potentials we may choose to work towards.
If a company is not looking to help people do this, but is attempting to predict behavior, then yes, they should use a different model.
I have no particular opinion on Jordan Peterson. He seems likable. But I am impressed by his knack for talking so much and yet saying so little. A knack for restating the obvious in a manner that seems to captivate so many.
I like Dr Peterson, but he’s attacking the MBTI for what it was never intended to be. The reason why corporations purchase a million units of this test is because it works for what it was designed for, helping people understand one another and so get along better.
if corporations didn't use it, the corporations would be no different to how government inefficiently run.
Not really the obvious considering how many people disagree with him
@@user-vq6ym6qg4j in this case he’s saying what every psychologists say. That’s not just his opinion that’s the opinion of most scientists working in psychology. So yes, that’s fucking obvious but people would do anything to defend popular psychology even if it’s full bullshit
Precisely. Over-chiming cognitive psychology into the corporate world to the exclusion of individual understanding is more of a problem. At least know what the test is supposed to be used for more than anything else. They help with career-building but they’re not 100% conclusive as far as that goes and they’re not even trying to be. Big 5 isn’t that useful.
Idk man. The world and my own personality started making a lot more sense once I took various tests and found out im intj. After I started reading more about Jung and cognitive functions I learned a lot about myself and it was all bc mbti gave me a good direction.
Peterson: "You should replace the MBTI by the Big Five"
Me: "it's treason, then"
Fr
I used both, I use mbti for understanding my strengths and weaknesses and how I could come across but I also used big 5 because I care for scientific stuff and it was very accurate. I use mbti for self improvement and I stayed for the memes
I agree. Different tools for different purposes.
MBTI serves as a compass in the journey of knowing one self. It is not a destination
Exactly!
As a big fan of both MBTI and JBP, I'm a bit sad that he is against the tool. However, he also mentioned that MBTI is "perfectly useful" to discuss individual differences and personalities. Because individual differences and personalities matter.
well myers briggs isn't supposed to be used for hiring purposes. So, that's the first issue.
Honestly i was completely down when i found out i'm an infp. It's right on the dot for me. But i found my dream job through mbti. I no longer pursue things that doesn't fit me. I'm working on my weaknesses now that i know what they are (procrastination, over sensitive etc). I became friends with an insensitive person just so I can develop a thicker skin and I'm also taking a math class to improve on my analytical skill. But this is just me of course. I won't defend it.
What is so bad about infp?
@@minervastuckinnwo we think but abstractly anything, of no utility most of the times. we listen to sad songs, as we think that helps with soothing our senses. crying is not a bad thing for us, its kinda common and not seen as unhealthy. we crave for something sad, maybe because we want to heal something but that never heals.
@@minervastuckinnwo we are very traumatic. the representation of Peter Parker by Tobey Maguire, is exactly us.
Based INFP 👍
i will second what you say. i have huge respect for JP but i do not care what others think or say if the method works for me. and it seems it is doing that greatly.
MBTI balanced with Enneagrams are a good way to describe most people, the problem with mbti and enneagrams (and most personality test) is that most people taking those test aren't truly self-aware and over / underestimate themselves or see themselves in a different light.
Someone that is honest with themselves and self-aware will benefit from MBTI and Enneagrams
No one I meet who does both are absolutely killing it in life tho.
People are above mediocre at best when they utilize these tools
@@Autonomous_Don eh that's anecdotal but either way people who take these test in the first place do it for fun or self help or to reinforce / justify their egos. Either way ennegrams and mbti are meant to help people develop either way. Most people neglect that, it doesn't help people getting mistyped af from glorified descriptions from blogs or websites.
I see JP's point, I really do, but then I don't use the Big 5 and MBTI to achieve the same objectives. The former is great for a deep-dive on specific facets of my own personality, but I simply can't manage that level of granularity beyond perhaps my immediate family.
What I find MBTI does is to give me decent contextual understanding of my place in my wider social and professional network (or at least decent-enough), and to deal with people in a way that - and let's not be coy about this - makes it more likely that I'll get what I want.
It's not just companies. MBTI spreads very successfully in social media and has a large following/community. Big5/OCEAN/HEXACO on the other hand almost has no online presence beyond the companies that sell them and the companies that buy them. Just look at how an MBTI video in youtube has endless comments if you scroll down, whereas OCEAN/HEXACO videos usually only has 3 to 5 comments max. It seems like people are just not interested in OCEAN/HEXACO/Big5.
I feel that the problem with the big 5 is that it's too objective like it really doesn't tell you anything you didn't already know but MBTI as it goes to a more hypothetical real helps people understand the difference of their personality compared to others.
The big five tell you what you are MBTI tells you why you might be
@@jose91807 For me it's that the MBTI tells me other people's view of reality and how differently other people's mind operates. This is something that I could have never come to conclusion by myself...
And comparing MBTI with astrology, the latter has an even greater following
@@ileanaprofeanu7626 You didn't understand the context I was talking about. Jordan Peterson keeps on repeating that MBTI is so much more famous than OCEAN/Big5 because of COMPANIES. He keeps on saying companies in all his videos as if corporate interest is the only thing that fuels interest in the MBTI, whereas almost all videos about MBTI in youtube are not corporate-world related. So he's missing a gigantic piece of the MBTI community.
Now, to address your irrelevant comment, science has an even greater following than MBTI and astrology combined (which very likely to include you). People take science as indisputable truth even when all of academia is plagued by irreproducible studies and scholars, scientists and researchers don't know how to deal with the "replication crisis". Yet, humanity still believe in scientific studies as if they were revealed by god...
science = the newest religion
scientists/researchers = priests/prophets
@@senantiasa She's a woman bra, let her be. Never argue with women.
It's just anecdotal, but I had 5 of my friends and family members take the mbti test and I predicted at least 3, mostly 4 of the indicators for each of them. So at least to me it feels like a good and accurate tool to put peoples personalities into categories.
and of course, the problem is that no empirical data proves that the test can accurately make predictions or serve any real purpose. There is not a single aspect of that test that relies on any scientific basis. It cannot make predictions accurately and consistently, and it serves no purpose to individuals who take it. MBTI is merely an evolved zodiac. Any attempt at putting something as complex as the human mind into categories will fail consistently, as there is simply much more to us than we perceive.
Exactly! As an ENFP I’ve been able to do this with people I know for years... and having watched me do it so much, my ESFJ wife can do it now too (and rarely gets different results).
I think the inaccuracies come mostly from people not understanding the test questions or not being aware of themselves enough to answer correctly. There’s also the problem of people just not being honest because they think they want to be a specific type.
That last one I think comes from people not understanding the terms. They think it’s negative to be introverted or judging for example... or they don’t want to be seen as too emotional or not thinking... so they steer the test to get the type they think they want... in accordance with their misunderstanding of the terms.
Sadly, they don’t understand that the terms have different definitions than what they’re familiar with within the system... and so they sabotage its usefulness in their lives.
Mbti also shows you your bad side, not everybody is winner, or maybe i should say, everybody is losser at the same time, reason of mbti having bad reputation is because of people who don't understand it
Right? I don’t know why he kept saying that. If anything, it highlights one’s weaknesses once it’s been taken.
I prefer MBTI. It's much more clear. The big Five is very vague. I just took an online test and the MBTI system is much clearer about who you are and much more useful.
Jung did not even endorse the Myers-Briggs. It has basically nothing to do with his personality typologies.
Well said! Official MBTI is preferences in external dichotomies for business applications. Nothing more, nothing less.
Many people do not realize that Jung is NOT meant to be a cognitive typology system... There is no mention of cognitive anywhere in his book Psychological Types. Also the various Ni, Ne... are TYPES in Jung. The actual cogfxs are stuff like praxis, gnosis, orientation... and those fall within the territory of neuroscience. Nevertheless Jung's original work is a good epistemological categorization to track more intuitively psychic processing in simplified ways.
Also Jung's original work is far more flexible than many people think. For instance in Jung's original work you can have types like N-t (ambiverted intuitive with thinking auxiliary) and even the undifferentiated type (the concept of no type in Jung).
In my opinion Carl Jung would be overall disgusted by the MBTI community. Speaking of which, as far as Jungian Classical is concerned, Jung was arguably Ti-n (leaning more towards Ti-Ni-Se-Fe by actual Jung terms with top half and bottom half balancing each other out) which it roughly translates to INTJ in MBTI terms... In the enneagram he was arguably a sx 973 Scholar-Priest.
You're welcome.
I'm ngl mbti helped me to feel understood and validated for the first time in my life. The Sensor/Intuitive and Introversion/Extroversion metrics work rather well as predictors irl. Presuming that the test results are accurate to the true personality of the person taking it. It's easy as hell to be mistyped and that is the main problem. + when it comes to judging functions (Thinking/Feeling) the lines can get pretty blurry. I am incredibly grateful for it, and I'd love to discuss some more points with Dr. Peterson about it actually haha anyway, after a few years of studying cognitive functions I have found it extremely useful to understand other people + myself in so many ways and it has made my life a lot better. But the big 5 stuff and deeper and traditional psychology are extremely interesting and useful too.
If any tests prove helpful to the individual, so be it, they should be allowed to use them. Be it MBTI or the zodiac signs, if it helps you get through your strife, by all means, go for it. The problem comes when people claim that this test is scientifically accurate (as in being based on the scientific method and is able to make accurate predictions). From Jung, to Briggs, to the MBTI, not a single thing relates in any way to actual science. Such test is not applicable to real professional fields. As a fun giggle with friends and an Instagram bio… Sure... As a determining tool for jobs, in interviews or for salaries or anything relating to the professional fields, no, no, no. It's basically a test that tells you what you think you are... Imagine the same practice done in hospitals.
@@ivantsachev2520 the tests suck... but if you study the functions to find what you are, it’s great. Sure, some people won’t be honest with themselves about how they really are... but that is a failing on their part and not the system. Works great for me.
i agree the test isn’t super accurate, but i think the categories are. for example, i never even took the test and i know with certainty i am an infj based on everything i’ve read and watched. it has helped my discover my strengths and weaknesses, but has also caused much heartache
The concept isn't bullshit. Using it to judge people is.
My whole channel is about MBTI, but he’s right, MBTI is not a tool for predicting work performance, it’s about cognitive preferences. Every type can be productive if they are allowed to work in the way that works best for them.
It’s not scientific, BUT it’s a summary. That’s all it is. It’s a summary of your preferences.
MBTI is like asking 20 questions about whether you like chocolate, and if you say yes on 15, then it says “you are a chocolate admirer”.
I think development of the has been pushed in the wrong direction because of capitalism.
But MBTI is much easier for the average person to understand and determine a lot of things about themselves and others. Honestly, it helped me a lot and made me negotiate better with others depending on their mbti personality. I can’t see it interchangeable with the Big 5, that is a very detailed test and hard to figure out others traits according to it just by knowing people for a short time, but u certainly can get closer to the probable mbti personality by that.
Classic riding of two horses at once. Jordon is awesome. Myers Briggs is interesting. Jordan has dismissed Myers Briggs. Heads have exploded. Phooey!!!! We are allowed to see the world differently from Jordon. Ergo. Jordan is still awesome. Myers Briggs is still interesting.
this.
Yes.
I really like his direct way of saying things.
You can't say that a car doesn't work just because it can't fly, that just falls into absurdity. MBTI is all about how you process data based on the order stack of your cognitive functions and also helps you discover what your weaknesses and strengths are which is the ultimate goal. I believe his opinion is quite misguided but since he is articulate, many people might just recieve it without questioning, lol. Don't get me wrong, while his opinion here had the wrong premise thus invalidating it, he does make good points when discussing other affairs like gender equality and feminism, he is quite hilarious to watch.
When people take “personality” quizzes, they take it as “this is who I am for some cosmic reason and I’ll never change”, they don’t understand that most things about your personality are going to change as you grow. You’re probably not going to have the completely same personality throughout your life. They can help you, they can be fun, etc. But they’re not some all-knowing being that tell you who you truly are, they just reflect what you find important.
I loved getting my MBTI totally nailed down. It's very accurate when you understand how your processes work on an everyday level. But it's not a good indicator of job performance or success--or even the goals you should be setting for yourself. I simply live peacefully with the knowledge of my type and just accept it, but I don't model myself off the stereotypes promoted about it. I do try to compensate for the functions I have difficulty using by workarounds I've devised, though.
I still can't get mine totally nailed down and it's been so long
Here's how I view the mbti personality test. I think that the questions you answer can easily vary from day to day, same with the big 5. However, once you find your type, its like everything clicks into place. Now, we are all unique people, so obviously it won't be entirely accurate. I view it as more of a starring point in the journey to understand yourself. I took the test several times from a couple different sites before I stumbled onto the personality type that felt right to me, but once I did, heh, it was awesome. But yes, the mbti personality types shouldn't be taken to seriously with yourself, because over time you yourself can change, just as the climate changes. However, the personality types can be helpful to start your journey towards self understanding. I think Jordan says a lot of smart things, but I agree with many people that he's judging it for a purpose that's its not supposed to be used for.
All in all, I think the mbti test is best used when acknowledging that its a human made test, so it will, of course, have flaws, but it is best to accept that and move on.
I've taken the MBTI test 3x - (no. 1) immediately after college, (no. 2) 10+ years after the last, and (no. 3) 15 years after the second one and still had same result. =)
You can only take it once. After that it isn't valid. The methodology they use for the test is based on taking it only once and also when you get feed back, then it invalidates the response because of confirmation bias. It may still be indicative but not entirely valid. "Shopping" around to find your type is utter bullshit and means none of them will ever be valid for you. Sorry. I'm quite low in agreeableness and high in intellect (which is separate from IQ)
What I don't like about the Big Five is that it is quite shallow/ weird as a system: It doesn't have the internal theoretical "beauty", the eight cognitive functions model has: The function model seems to imply that every type or function is quite morally neutral in its formal description and doesn't initially make a value judgement. But the Big Five has dimensions in it, which aren't neutral or don't seem to be, especially conscientiousness and neuroticism, the first which is bad when you have less of it and the second which is bad when you have much of it. So The Big Five dimensions often don't range from A to B (with A having strengths and weaknesses and B having diametrically opposed strengths and weaknesses like Ti having areas in which it beats Te but Te also having areas in which it beats Ti) but from good to bad.
It's silly to try explaining a thing you haven't even described yet, so big 5 describing it without a theory explaining it is good.
Some things really are just bad (e.g. having a low IQ) so why should a test be designed such that every result has pros and cons?
@@WorthlessWinner My point isn't really that the Big Five is bad in itself, I just think that it doesn't quite achieve the same level of insightful satisfaction a system like mbti does.
There is something about personality type systems that is deeply interesting for lots of people, so as much the Big Five may be laudable from a scientific point of view, I think there is also some worth to the personal level on which people find such a system satisfying or not.
And at least for me the Big Five has something off-putting uninspiring to it, it seems to just state obvious things which are evident from the questions of the test itself. Like neuroticism, which everybody who has a certain anxiety is painfully aware of.
@@lexiferenczy9695 it works because it's straightforward and has more direct ties to where the traits come from. (neuroticism having strong ties to fight/flight response). MBTI just seems more "beautiful" because it is rather ambiguous in its description (Thinking/Feeling for example, means almost nothing because everyone obviously have both of these traits and they aren't all that different.) MBTI still has a place in this world because I find it very entertaining when a conversation shifts to one about personalities (which is always MBTI). I just don't find it useful because MBTI has a negative tendency of making people unwilling to learn and imitate the traits of other personalities and rather stick to their personality which they portray themselves as, making them act more strongly towards the dimensions, which I'm concerned of because a personality dimension pushed to its edge is never good. I think this probably has to do with the system of grouping people in blocks rather than putting them on a spectrum.
@@haemind Well, the main reason I like mbti/ jungian typology is because it resonated so much with me on a personal level and gave me new insight about myself, which I wouldn't have come up with myself. So I find it quite useful for the main part.
But that doesn't mean it is the end of the road of typology. I always thought that mbti probably misses out on other aspects of personality or is wrong in certain aspects, because it's just unlikely that a system like that is perfect as it is and could never be improved upon. But at the moment it seems to be the most insightful typology system we have, at least for me.
You are right that people shouldn't constrain themselves with what they think they should be according to their supposed type. But I think that depends on the individual, how good they know themselves. The classical introversion vs extraversion topic is an example for that: Some people will use their notion of them being introverted as an excuse to not broaden their comfort zone even though it would better for their psyche in the long run. But other people will use it responsibly and just recognize that they don't have to always be meeting new people and that it's ok to be alone when it suits them.
@@haemind two words. Cognitive. Functions.
In my experience, taking the MBTI in a business context wasn't to gauge productivity potential of individuals - there were other tests for that. Instead, the MBTI tests were used within the context of team interactions (understand yourself and your close co-workers / subordinates / managers). One of the core ideas here, I would think, is that the test would help mitigate conflict from clashing personality types and, ultimately, should help improve the team's overall productivity. It's a shame he didn't touch on that - would have liked to hear more of his elaborated thoughts
I find it odd the big 5 doesn't say much in the way of what people will enjoy, or how they will relate to other people. Like there's nothing actually personal about this personality test. It's more of a professionality test.
I personally have found the results/description of my type to correlate considerably with the big 5. Also I‘ve observed other people to fall well into their type. Even if they do get mistyped it’s correctable by taking multiple tests and the initial type is still close to the actual type.
I love the Myers Briggs test for personality when using it to understand yourself and others. But probably not for job/candidate selection.
Note he says "with regards to performance prediction." He also discounted the MBTI and immediately promoted his own personality test, which you have to pay to take, so this makes me a bit cautious. I agree with what he says about it being attractive to people because EVERYONE wins. However, that doesn't mean there isn't some truth in this typology system; it can be helpful as long as you use it as a tool to understand yourself and possibly relationships in your life, and not confine yourself rigidly to your type's description or those of amateur enthusiasts online. A great way to convince people of things is to sprinkle in some powerful truths. Like with all things, I questions things and encourage everyone to do so to; take what works for you and always be open to revising your opinion.
I think the biggest false assumption this man makes is that corporations have generally good intentions.
The woman who invented it literally said it was nonsense and she only came up with it to turn her daughter off of her new boyfriend.
Anyone with common sense knows it’s a load of rubbish. “I am comfortable talking in large groups.” What groups? What am I talking about? Where are we? What’s riding on what I have to say?
Each question can have completely opposite answers depending on the circumstances, which aren’t specified.
I respect Jordan Peterson, but I disagree with him on this. The MBTI can't be easily measured because it is about what goes on inside your head. It is about your thinking process, not your actions. There is a theory behind the MBTI, but there is no theory behind the big 5. The Big 5 is basically just a statistical observation that you can broadly fit all personality questions into 5 groups, and that's it. The MBTI has much more depth, but because of its unmeasurable nature it can't be scientific. I think they are both valid because the Big 5 can be tested but it has no depth. The MBTI has depth, but every person has to judge it for himself because there is no way to prove to another person, for instance, that I'm an introverted feeler rather than an extroverted feeler. Actually I guess I do agree that the MBTI tests suck because it is really hard to make a test which measures introverted feeling/extroverted feeling.
Quite Phenomenological.
👍🏽
It’s rare to see Peterson craft such a poor argument. “And that’s that.” There is some bias here and it appears even a bit of cognitive dissonance. He’s almost angry about it. Angry in the same way that he gets visibly irritated with the far left which I assume is a bias that makes sense considering his work environment. And possibly that is why he has an ace to grind with MBTI.
My experience with MB is that I have found it to be extremely helpful relationally and also in sales to understand how to better communicate with people. However, I do agree that it has little predictive utility for performance, but it is helpful in identifying potential ways to unlock productivity.
In regards to the big 5. I haven’t taken one yet and I am eager to learn about it and see my results.
Axe*
He just marketing his test
That is actually very stupid
First of all his test is not the only test to measure your big 5
Dumb dumb
That doesn't really make sense. He didn't invent the concept of the Big Five, and if he was after money could have just as easily made an MBTI test.
The Myers Briggs test itself is absolute garbage, BUT the idea of cognitive functions and the idea of the 16 personality types is 100% useful and can 100% tell you who you are.
The problem is that in determining your personality type out of the 16, most people make use of the Myers briggs system which is probably only accurate about 30% of the time. Using other methods based more on deductive reasoning rather than inductive reasoning (such as the type grid) will produce a much more accurate result, while still using the same personalities and basic principles the Myers briggs system is built on.
MBTI is more or less accurate for different people but it’s definitely accurate for me and a few others I know. It may be pseudoscience but it’s on to something.
That's called the forer effect. You think it's accurate because you're looking at an idealized version of yourself.
@@paddleed6176, have you ever taken the MBTI with family, friends or co-workers? If not, I highly suggest it because of the valuable insights it can provide.
@@biblehistoryscience3530
This. Honestly the dynamic between me and my parents and why I gravitate towards my dad so much makes a ton of sense when looking at MBTI.
These personality types may not be truly able to be as narrowed down as MBTI likes to claim but they definitely exist and MBTI makes so much sense out of abstract ideas like personality!
@@paddleed6176 no. MBTI covers what unhealthy and very much un idolized versions of the personality types look like also. Is covers the types of problems they’re likely to deal with and such.
Most psychological metrics/questionnaires are pseudoscientific, with the exception of Big Five and possibly a few others. They’re still fun tho lol. I love enneagram and mbti as leisure activities even if there’s no scientific validity to it
So he doesn’t believe in the MBTI but he believes that people are alpha and beta…
This man is a joke
It's about eight cognitive functions and what we use most. Self awareness is key though.
@1:22 I love Jordan's directness.
Hello, does anyone here knows if there is a match of jobs for the big five test? like what kind of job should be suited for you if you get a specific result on the big 5 test?
The Meyers Briggs system has been extremely helpful to me
That's such an INTP thing to say, omfg
From my arm chair, it appears that Big Five informs us how huge numbers of data points (people) have actually behaved while MBTI shows how a specific person is actually built.
I know this is a late comment but I remember all my psychology profs don't respect MBTI at all. They had a lot of reasons but 1 that was consistent was that it was not made with the intent of studying people in mind. It was made from an existing school of thought in an attempt to validate it by two people who had no background in studying psychology. (Forgive the vagueness. This was a long time ago). It is also the reason why the Big 5 was more respected as it was built over decades by several people who spent their lives studying human behavior and psychology.
What is it that people find appealing about this Jordan Peterson character? The fact that Madison Cawthorn, who only attempted one semester of college and dropped out with all D's, recommends Peterson should be a red flag. The MBTI is NOT A TEST. The person completing the personality inventory is the expert and they decide which 4 letter type is a fit for them. The MBTI personality inventory is one of the most on-target and helpful assessments I've ever taken. It has been a tremendous help to me in better understanding myself and others. To understand and benefit from the MBTI you should go through the process with someone who is MBTI-certified and follows the correct protocol for interpretation after you complete the MBTI personality inventory. This includes 1) an overview of the model which includes definitions of type and types; 2) self-assessment; 3) presentation of reported type; 4) discussion on the match or mis-matches in 3 & 4; 5) provisions of additional information to assist you in determining or affirming your 4 letter type; and 6) provision of information and resources for using your knowledge of the inventory in a way that is of most benefit to you. And - as I tell folks - if it doesn't resonate with you the way it resonates with me that's ok. I'm just sick of the bad press the MBTI has been getting from people who either took the inventory online and tried to interpret it themselves or had a horrible facilitator.
Modern use of MBTI uses a system that is a mix of it and the big five. 16P for example is largely a big 5 test disguised as an MBTI test, but where everyone wins, as he said
Thank you! :)
When testing for employment, many people will answer the questions based on what they "feel" will be the correct response, completely skewing the results. With that said, I've seen a lot of people who interview well for a job and then turn out to be horrible employees.
I think they're stupid. It's like something goes down. Who do u tell? Confront co worker in civil manner or inform supervisor? Uhhh confront supervisor? Ehhhh what's team work if you guys don't know how to talk to to each other? Oh. Right. Effective communication w/ co workers. What u said! Talk to team player. Supervisor: ehhhh. The hell is wrong w/ u. Whoever told u that they didn't like snitches was lying. Even the most hs of gs never got by w/ out telling on someone. That's how our co thrives. Stepping on toes. Where the hells your bold takes initiative narcissistic takes lead inner psychopath at? Dude idk I just need money
I use the meyers briggs type for stories I watch and characters I write about.
Well we've ALL got something to SELL ... hey Jordan!
For development, sure, the big five is a much better alternative. And can actually predict results. However MBTI mixed with more jungian infulence is much better suited to describe who you are and how you think.
What is the difference between a percentage and percentile?
LMAO I love me some JP but he's too much of an academic to realize the utility of MBTI as a tool. Validation, test-retest, r-factor analysis, Chronbach alpha, etc. Literally nobody cares about this except for academics. Once you learn cognitive functions, you can type yourself perfectly without needing a tool.
about the stupidest comment I've ever seen on this webstie.
My Dear Mr Peterson is doing an excellent job selling his Fi (subjective internal values) with his Te (objective external thinking).
Spoken like a true INFJ. Seriously though, I use MBTI virtually everyday. I’m a team leader and run a side business. I am constantly thinking about how my sensor business partner is a good balance to my being an intuitive and the comm challenges that arise. My team is a mix of temperaments, and in every important conversation I’m thinking through how to curb my ENFP tendencies to comm with my ISFJ music director. Literally yesterday I was in a pastoral counseling session helping a couple though some parenting troubles wherein MBTI helped them to understand their response to the situation. I use MBTI all the time. Peterson is maybe on another level, and I’m very interested in learning more about the big 5. But in I/O psych and in marriage, MBTI does in fact work, and very well at that. I’m guessing Peterson doesn’t run a team or pastor people through personal crisis or do pre-marital counseling.
Use the mbti and big 5 in tandem. It gives you a broader perspective where each plugs the holes of the other.
Was this just an advert?
MBTI has merit, but the way in which it’s used should be limited and used properly.
I bet INTP’s and J’s are here to check wether MBTI is accurate or not… like what I did there?
I have studied and observed Hippocrates 4 base temperaments the past 48 years.As a result,I know from a productive and specific skills perspective,I now know exactly what I will get from the person I hire
How come the OCEAN test doesnt incorporate some of the archetypes like in MBTI? Like categorize average personalities. It's difficult explaining my results in comparison with someone else's results without writing a 20 page essay. When we could use archetypes to explain somones rssults. So my results according to ocean could be Mediator on MBTI and my friend's results could be more closesly associated with Engineer on MBTI
I used to say "MBTI isn't that bad because it correlates fairly well with the big 5" but it turns out that's just the MBTI tests, which just use big 5 tests like Neo-Pi-R then derive MBTI from it so of course 16personalities or similarminds results would correlate well with big5. The actual MBTI is a hot mess that you subjectively assign to yourself.
I do find it funny that the kind of people who are most likely to take a personality test seem most likely to "fail" it
I think trying to discover different personality types is a waste of time because in reality you can say one person is one way but they can often change and mature and grow up and their personalities can change so that they are no longer an introvert but they can become an extrovert. I think a lot of this is psychobabble bulshit but at least Jordan Peterson is on the right path to debunk these labels from almost 100 years ago
I'm sorry but an introvert is never going to become an extrovert. And the other way round.
There's been a lot of research on personality change. The rank order doesn't really change that much, no more than IQ does, even if you put in a lot of effort.
@@dangerousliaisons483 - I wouldn't say it can't change. Most work on aging and personaity suggests that there's a few predictable changes as you get older, but those don't alter rank order (you get less extroverted than you were, but the people who started off as less extroverted than average in their generation stay that way). Work on deliberately changing your personality suggests it is possible, but you need to put so much work in for such small changes that I doubt it's practical. Obviously, brain damage can cause uncontrolled personality change too.
This comment suggests you don’t understand MBTI and the cognitive functions that it reveals at all... which is the real issue with the system a large percentage of the time if ya ask me.
The terms are defined terms within a closed system... which is admittedly confusing because they are common terms that we use differently than they’re defined here.
Being an introvert in the MB system just means the attitude of your most preferred function in an introverted one rather than an extroverted one. It’s a function you consume with rather than create with. Info going in rather than coming out. Nothing about being shy or backward or assertive or loud-mouthed or anything else you might be thinking.
People are similarly tripped up by “thinking” which just means you more naturally pick out what works rather than what resonates with your values when making decisions , as opposed to people’s assumptions that maybe thinkers are smart and feelers are emotional cry-babies. By the common meaning, these are all thinking because they’re all brain functions.
And finally, many assume judging means they’re judgmental when it simply means they prefer having decisions made over leaving their options open.
Learn about it before you bag on it next time, otherwise it’s only you who is wrongly labeling something. It’s a tool that helps people understand themselves if they bother to learn how to use it correctly.
nice now i know the driffrence between a percentage and a percentile
So what does this say about me as a person? On the Myers Briggs I am INTJ.
Openness to experience
27
Conscientiousness
74
Extraversion
21
Agreeableness
43
Neuroticism
38
Yeah, I also settled on intj. I wish there was an easy way to say what your results from the big 5 tests were, like it is for the mbti test. Its too hard to insert into Google. No wonder its not popular.
Bug 5 doesn't tell u who u are, just how you come off.
Cognitive functions tell u who you are but not necessarily how u come off.
Which is why in combination of the Enneagram, the Big Five and the MBTI, rather than the just the one can provide a framework, not a complete one, but one that is good indicator of what your weaknesses and strengths are, what industry you may prefer a role in and how you tend to operate.
I’ve taken the like a dozen times over the last 10 years I used to get intp all the time then infp for a while then most recently I’ve got entp so it depends what state of mind you’re in whether you when you take it, but I almost always get close to 50% split of introvert/extrovert and 50% split of thinking/feeling but I always get a high percentage of intuition over sensing and high perceiving over judging.
I found MBTI can become self fulfilling prophecy. Big Five is no nonsense
i always thought that test was about finding jobs you might like.
MBTI is used for what it shouldn’t be used for, hence the challenges.
The test he mentioned involves spending money
I’ve seen through my friends and family that the MBTI isn’t entirely accurate but somehow I have nearly every single INFP trait 💀
Interesting video.
Highly regard Jordan Peterson but on this one he is not entirely correct. I cried when I read the explanation of why I was an INFJ in the Myers Briggs test. It explained me and so many of the difficulties I have experienced in life since I can ever remember. Having studied scientific subjects with the Open University I am aware of how very very careful you have to be reaching conclusions. Absolutely correct. Yet too much of the report on what an ISNF ‘s character is , was too accurate to be fake. You can try to delude yourself but it never works because you know that is exactly what you are doing. I do have an open mind though so here is a question to any expert that just might read my comment. I am a little girl about five years old and having my photo taken. But I am not smiling and am being told to smile by an adult with me who I knew. My inward response, ‘why?’ You see I knew I was smiling ‘inside’ me. I knew an outward smile was something I couldn’t do.
He is a hypocrite. He supposedly upholds morals and is pro-life, yet he is obsessed with IQs and assigns value to people based on those numbers. Not to mention that he screams with narcissism, and elevates himself above those whom he finds unworthy.
As for MBTI. If he thinks that the "weaknesses" which the results of the test so bluntly highlight didnt hurt my feelings, then he's dumber than a doorknob.
MBTI is the most accurate test I've used for personality grouping.
IDGAF about professional, I trust results
Mbti is as infallible as math or physics. It describes your cognitive functions.
People are too complex to be typed into 1 personality type. Like I can have most of the traits of an INTJ but what if I also act like an ISTJ. I know about functions but I think humans have way more to offer
But I wish u wud be more explanatory as to why it doesnt work , rather than just sayin it's old. Don't get me wrong , I have immense respect for jordan. I just want to know y.
A lot of copium in this comment section. MBTI is not supported by any clinical psychologists, it’s not just Peterson. It is de facto not a tool people should be using if they are truly interested in personality research, because it is neither reliable nor valid. It is office astrology, and grossly oversimplifies the complexity of personality. The people here saying that the big 5 yielded incorrect results either points to the test being bad, or that you have input wrong information.
I guess a lot of people talking about the MBTI today probably tested themselves with the NERIS type indicator (16personalities). That one is actually a *combination* of MBTI and Big Five, which doesn’t rely on Jungian concepts. So that explains why it seems to be more accurate than the classic MBTI.
That said, isn’t it strange to hear Jordan Peterson go *against* Carl Jung’s ideas for a change? 😁
He needs to pay more attention. He left a lot out and just kind of arrogantly made assumptions based on dated info. The 16 personalities is NOT the foundation or the main community for mbti or Jung archetypes.
Did the MBTI tests for a few months now, I am always been a INTP-T for 8 months now and did the test 6 times and one time I got INTP-A but it was only 57% Assertive. It works for me I improved allot of the weaknesses I had. But I know people that take the tests and get every time a different result, I think it could be a identity problem or so, correct me if I’m wrong.
i’ve never seen a take on mbti as pitiful as this. JP missed the entire point of jungian personality types & how they’re actually supposed to be used. not to mention theoretical ignorance & one-sided cultural analysis at play. once you get into stuff like vultology you can’t discount how fascinating understanding how the brain processes information & makes decisions really is.
The Big Five results said I was an extrovert - nope I am an introvert ( people drain me I have to recharge) (my brother is extrovert he gets energy from people). The MBTI describes my personality better. I am going to take the Big Five again to see if I get the same results.