The more I watch this channel, the more I realize how CPT is truly the best MBTI theory we have. CPT simultaneously accounts for people's variation in their behavior according to which functions they are prioritizing, and is consistent enough to make logical deductions about how people interact with their environment. CPT also encourages people to have a growth mindset, rather than mainstream MBTI's habit of putting people into little boxes they can't come out of. I hope more and more people in the MBTI community will embrace CPT.
I agree CPT is great but its not the only sub theory that does this. Jungian Depth Psychology and CS Joseph's theories also do this and contain pathways for growth.
This is a bit of a "pre-watch" statement, but has anyone noticed that no article that talks of the MBTI, especially the Vox one, does not bring up cognitive functions? Of course dichotomies change, I can literally go from INFP to ESTJ in the flip of a switch using that logic. Cognitive functions allow for the fluidity between types while keeping that base thought process. It isn't about personality, it's about *cognition.* You can be an Ne user and have the ability to plan because personality doesn't equal "personality." You can be an INTP while being incredibly emotional because thinking dosen't equal a lack of emotions. Everyone is intuitive and sensing, everyone is feeling and thinking, and so on.
Excellent points! I agree there is indeed a trend of these articles to dismiss the cognitive functions :) I would add however that I believe the cognitive functions within classic MBTI are more metaphorical as measurements of 'preferred function', which absolutely changes. I constructed the social archetypes of CPT to allow for this while keeping core cognition relatively constant.
@@CognitivePersonality That's interesting, for sure. I've always subscribed to the "you can't change type." Not really that you can't masquerade as another, but at the end of the day, you have the base functions that you developed from the beginning of your life. Of course, a different perspective can do a long way.
The internet needs ONE clear and comprehensive article on the MBTI. That is - on the test that indicates your type. After that, we can all get down to business (debate/discussion on the possible truths & falsehoods of the cognitive functions).
“The first step to getting out of prison is realizing that you are in prison”. We are all in a unique prison based on our ego defense structures. These structures have similar and different underlying and overlapping patterns. Or we could say it’s based on cognitive predisposition, or a combination of both. A good “Personality” or “Cognitive” “typing” system is not designed to be a diagnostic tool. That would be telling someone, “You are in the New York State Prison and other people are in different prisons”. That statement would do very little to aid in a jailbreak. A good typing system sheds light on how a particular individual can use their specific strengths to pick the locks of their own cell, and provides a map to the underground tunnels through which they can escape. If a person chooses to use a typology system to endlessly study the bars of their own cell, or other’s cells, and becomes fascinated by them, instead of getting out, that person would probably relate to life in general that way. If another person understood that the system is not diagnostic, but a helpful map, they would embark on the mission of getting out of jail. Taking an MBTI test, Enneagram test, etc. is not in itself a dangerous thing. This whole lifetime is a chance to either reinforce what we think we already know, or explore our blind spots and use that exploration to become more free. We can use absolutely anything we encounter for either of these purposes. It’s only relevant if something is “science” if an individual would feel more confident using a scientific map. Some people do. And science is incredible, essential, and highly useful. But in my opinion, dwelling on this question of how scientific it is, misses the point.
This video could have been called: "Holistic Introverted Thinking Grievances with Exploitative Extroverted Thinking Practices" XD I enjoyed this analysis, and it is refreshing to see you keeping the faith and advocating for a continued pursuit of holistic cognition, my friend! ^_^ As always, Thank you :D
“Experts” get angry and overreact when people are given a tool to self-assess without paying said “experts” to do it for them. It’s the old, “you can’t be trusted to assess that because you didn’t get the degree”...Oh, boo hoo...not all of us are idiots!
Yep, it's like guilds vying for exclusive rights to overpriced knowledge in an era wherein mere knowledge is commoditized and ear-prostitutes worry over getting their $300 per hour for pretending to listen to others who could just as easily complain and gossip to friends for free. Heck, doctors, actual doctors, often google things that people independently research in more depth, like epitomized in Lorenzo's Oil and a similar thing of autodidacticism was done in Good Will Hunting. Doctors and the like get lazy and think their fancy toilet paper means they're always right no matter how wrong they are.
"The existence of distinct ways of perceiving would seem self-evident. People perceive through their senses, and they also perceive things that are not and never have been present to their senses. The (MBTI) theory adds the suggestion that the two kinds of perception compete for a person’s attention and that most people, from infancy up, enjoy one more than the other. When people prefer sensing, they are so interested in the actuality around them that they have little attention to spare for ideas coming faintly out of nowhere.... As soon as children exercise a preference between the two ways of perceiving, a basic difference in development begins. The children have enough command of their mental processes to be able to use the favorite processes more often and to neglect the processes they enjoy less. Whichever process they prefer, whether sensing or intuition, they will use more, paying closer attention to its stream of impressions and fashioning their idea of the world from what the process reveals. The other kind of perception will be background, a little out of focus. " Myers, Isabel Briggs. Gifts Differing: Understanding Personality Type . Quercus. Kindle Edition.
I really love you saying that MBTI is a metaphor. That's exactly what I think of it. A beautiful and small language or lens to understand certain aspects of people.
@@CognitivePersonality Have you decided that you're an INTJ or INFJ? I haven't watched too many of your recent videos so I'm not sure. 😅 You seem more INTJ to me. 🙃
@@nkopanelesedilebona9227 Dichotomies-wise I am more ENTJ/INTJ, but my functions are Ni-Ti/Se-Fe so I am forced into the INFJ type code. The CPT type code of INT-Fs suits me far better :D
@@CognitivePersonality Thanks, I've been meaning to get into CPT, I haven't really started yet. Hopefully I'll be able to understand that last one soon. You're my prime RUclips recommendation for typology newcomers.
OMG I can't even begin to tell you how much I needed to hear this!! I had an argument with someone the other day and they weren't ready to listen to why MBTI wasn't "inaccurate"
I do not mean to defend the author but I don't blame them. I'm sure we are all aware of the misinformation and ignorance in the MBTI community. One has to be genuinely and deeply interested in it to learn how much nuiance there is to it. Hence, I think it might be accurate to say the author based their knowledge off the superficial and 'corrupted' knowledge most people have about MBTI (which, sadly, continues to be progated).
Well said. I like the 'analytical philosophy'-based style of yours :) I just want to add a bit about "the science" people (even with PhD) might be referring to hopefully clear up some misunderstandings. I think nowadays those who talk a lot about "science", use this term (at best) in the context of the obsolete 'logical positivism' without knowing it. They think the role of science is "to prove" things by experiment. Ironically, if we work in that school of thought, we'd never consider 'psychology' as a science. In the next level, i.e. in the school of 'falsifiability', even Popper himself considered Freud's psychoanalysis a pseudo-science. Though fortunately a lot changed regarding how to view science and scientific method, after the works of influential philosophers such as Lakatos, Kuhn and Feyerabend. I think that was when "science" returned to its source/home again (before WWII) when it was "natural philosophy". You might find it strange that even within the physics community, there were times (even nowadays but with somewhat less intensity) that the majority considered some (in hindsight) important theories as not being "scientific". This was mainly due to the pragmatist (semi-military based) mindset that took over after the WWII. Prior to this unfortunate era, we had Nobel-winning physicists who revolutionized science such as Wolfgang Pauli who became deeply influenced by Carl Jung. They became lifelong friends and they both collaborated on some concepts like 'synchronicity'. We had Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg,... , who didn't differentiate between science and mysticism, between physics and metaphysics, between subjective and the objective. Should I mention Newton and his obsession with alchemy? Anyway, whenever someone mentions that something is not "scientific", I tend to remind him/her about these stuff (if I care about them or respect them of course, else I wouldn't bother) and how they should reconsider their definitions/views on science (or at least regarding physics which I'm involved with). Finally, I'd like to end it with this quote by Pauli: "In my own view it is only a narrow passage of truth (no matter whether scientific or other truth) that passes between the Scylla of a blue fog of mysticism and the Charybdis of a sterile rationalism. This will always be full of pitfalls and one can fall down on both sides."
Love this comment - I didn't know about the connection between Jung and Wolfgang Pauli! 'Analytical-philosophy' - this sums it up nicely and is a wonderful compliment :)
I am a mostly serious, now kinda senior level scientist in a related area and oh yes, people have had a lot of disdain for MBTI for a long time! I don’t know what they think about the recent resurgence in popularity but I think it mainly stems from some reliability issues (personality researchers tended to use the big five or other models) and the fact/perception that Myers Briggs was used more in practical/employment settings and not as open/public/science-oriented. I on the other hand have always had a highly stable type since my teens, think it is helpful for self understanding or add a complementary perspective, and have always thought it was hilarious that people almost act irate when you bring it up like it matters so much that you took a quiz they don’t like! But that kind of judgemental attitude is not uncommon in the establishment science/ academia/ mental health complex, unfortunately - where this ENTP unquietly suffers. ;)
Very interesting that your type has remained consistent! The rather arbitary manner in which MBTI has previously been applied has, as you say, likely left a bad taste in the mouth of the scientific community. Haha, that sounds tough indeed!
Modern psychology has a serious problem. First of all, it is based on the study of pathology in human behaviour and does not pay attention to how different we are and how we are in our "best condition". Secondly, it is based on the theory of one person and his derivatives (Freud). Thus, it is limited only to the carnality of the person, which is a fundamental mental error. MBTi, as a more developed version of Jung's and Enneagram's ideas, seems to me better to know who we are, or how we act. Anyway, when we look at other areas of so-called "science" we find a "mental concrete" everywhere, behind which there is really big money spent to change a person's thinking into more comfortable for a payer. PS: I hope is readable. I'm not English native speaker.
I love that last part - you're right, most of the more scientifically valid typological concepts are used as marketting/political tools to actively encourage particular traits. Cheers for the great comment!
Very interesting video, Harry. I enjoyed this a lot. The way I see identity is in two parts. I believe we need a foundational identity to ground us to our values, ethics and a faith if we have one. If we don't have that, we can be pulled and blown all over the place and I've seen that cause a lot of mental distress for people. The other I view as a secondary identity. To me, holding on too tightly to the latter is what gives people a fixed mindset. Our secondary identity should be fluid and it does change through out our lives with knowledge and experience. Also, science is important, but it's also not to be all and end all of all things either. As with most things in life, I believe there needs to be a balance between faith and science. There are some things it simply cannot measure and other things it can.
Agreed! One should also strive to create one's foundation absent stereotypes and theoretical frameworks whenever possible. I also believe people can tend to confuse the latter with the former when it comes to type :) Cheers for the great comment!
@@CognitivePersonality thanks :) I have a follow up comment. What does, this is a bit of a strawman mean? Something that doesn't fit correctly into the framework? We don't have that expression in Canada and I'm too curious for my own good lol. I've never heard it before. Does it have it's origins in the ancient ritual of the burning straw man of the celts?
@Seneca Black oh cool, thanks for looking that up! That makes sense in the context of the video. Here I was thinking maybe this is linked to the notorious wicker man or something. Something described by the romans that may or may not be true anyway.
Some salient points well expressed here! You present a very balanced argument in response to the article. :-) I think I'm going to have to get hold of a copy of your book, there's so much I need to learn...!
As a throw away child I typed people not know what I was doing. It keep me self. I could see or tell what others were capably off. Back in my day it was called stereo typing.
Hello, what are your thoughts on the Enneagram? Do you know much about it and have you ever attempted to cross reference between the two systems? I think healthy skepticism is important in all personality work, and to use it in a wider context of other growth practices, if thats what you are using it for. There is a lot that exists beyond evidence based processes that we as humans have not yet developed an understanding of. I have been able to develop a personal growth practice from my Enneagram and MBTI knowledge that has helped me so much, but in the past I have misused it a lot because I was alone in figuring out the most beneficial applications of it. Thanks for the videos, it's great to see people who work with the Enneagram and MBTI in ethical and sensible ways that specifically lay out the intricacies of what is happening and understand the importance of recognizing the delicacy and sensitivity associated with interacting with people's psyches.
I enjoy and appreciate the enneagram for as long as it is on a fluid spectrum - I do not believe one's enneagram is the variables in question are given to change. I do, however, consider it a nice tool to describe how someone is 'right now' :)
I enjoyed your critique of the article. It seems they could have put more effort into bolstering their point with data and relied on "experts" making emotional arguments too heavily. MBTI or any other psychological test shouldn't be given to children unless it's under the guidance of a mental health professional. Testing alone can bring up distressing things that may need to be handled carefully. School districts are guilty of this all the time though. The military gives periodic "aptitude" tests through schools in the US and then coincidentally you're on a mailing list for military enrollment campaigns and colleges. They're optional but not presented that way. There's other outside testing that has nothing to do with educational concerns occurring and parents are just given a glossed over reason for why it's needed when it's simply data mining that benefits the school somehow. My spitfire mother was happy to write absence notes for those days that let the school know exactly what she thought of all this 😂
13:41 I think I figured out how to lose my INFJ dummy look. In a large crowd I go in my head. I'm aware of what's going on around me and keep up in a conversation.
Science have been wrong in so many cases througout history and has to be corrected because of new discoveries...so what's true today can be false tomorrow...I have my own truth and not all of it are based on Science. I wish more people knew what an INFJ is and knew more about how to relate to one...because that would make my life so much easier 😬
Yes science has been wrong many times and there have been several impressive stuck times in growth from that. The geocentric view of the solar system took several hundred years to break free of. Science has its own myopia, incidentally I studied physics in university and then got my diploma in Computer Science. I tend to keep my feet in several camps, psychology, science and certain ideas that have mystical connotations. To me they all hold value and I can connect them all together. Then again I am ENFP and a core ENFP idea is everything is connected. ENFPs are deeply holistic entities or at least this one is, which is why we are so misunderstood in this divided world.
As a species, we have only been talking about a "scientific method" for a couple centuries; truth, values, and the human experience go back far longer. I am not anti-science (my PhD advisor would KILL me if I were!), but science is just one way of knowing - and science is only as unbiased as the mindset of its practitioners. Garbage in, garbage out. * That being said, I *do* appreciate the steps CPT is taking to apply a more scientific approach to cognition. I really don't see this as being in competition with MBTI; it's just applying a Jungian-derived framework to a different sphere, a different purpose. MBTI addresses one need, and CPT meets a different need. I use MBTI-speak to communicate my ideals; I'm learning CPT to understand my cognitive processes. * All of this is to say that something can be unscientific, but still be a useful, valuable tool. The archetypes of MBTI give people a common language, a common vocabulary to discuss personal differences that would otherwise be mutually unintelligible. In contrast, CPT seems to be targeting cognition, which is a different (and at least as valuable) matter altogether. I've said before that I like to think of MBTI like the Hogwarts Sorting Hat: there might be some category that technically "suits" you better, but ultimately, YOU get to decide what you value - YOU get to decide which house you go to. It's a statement of value, of aspiration, of the sort of path you envision yourself being on. * Or, more precisely, I'm reminded of a quote from Doctor Who: "Look, my name, my real name, that is not the point. The name I chose is the Doctor. The name you choose, it's like a promise you make."
Or, taken from Harry Potter: “Tell me one last thing," said Harry. "Is this real? Or has this been happening inside my head?" "Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” ...although, in a sense, even the most scientific approach to cognition is technically happening inside one's head!
I like to say, everyone creates it's own reality. If one wants to fit in a box then he/she will change to do so. And I understand putting a label into a person may provide such a box. And this can prevent growth. But as I first came to CPT I was impressed by how much you emphasized your goal to help people growth and that everyone can overcome his type.
This is postmodernism bullshit. MBTI is scientific, and it's valuable. You are just justifying pseudoscience to justify MBTI when it's complitelly unnecessary and counterproductive to MBTI being respected, because then it's when people say MBTI is just like astrology.
What’s your opinion on the 4 sides of the mind. Ego, Unconscious mind, Subconscious mind, and super ego. Each being a different type that each develop at different stages of life.
The comment by YJM here echoes much of my own thoughts on the subject :) I would also add that the four corners are a little too arbitrary for my liking - a presumption is made that flipping a cognitive stack four times corresponds to four distinct cognitive types within the psyche. Our cognitive stack is always fluidly morphing and dipping into other function allignments, and there is more than a single axis for the functions to rotate on. As such, limiting the psyche to four types firstly overlooks the lens-codec axis (the ESFP of an ENTJ, so to speak), and secondly assumes the four 'neatest' types to form from a cognitive stack are the most influential.
Personally I find the 4 sides to have some legitimacy in my experience analyzing the types. I’ve interviewed and analyzed multiple people of each type and find the subconscious mind portion to be quite accurate and useful. (ENFJ)
how do you mean cognitive functions are metaphorical? all i know is that memories pop in my head sometimes, i’ll be sorting out how i think something works in my head for like 30 minutes in the shower, i feel feelings, i get ideas,,, aren’t these the results different processes that the human brain runs? the results of these functions functioning?
When the scientific and academic communities are working on synchronized brain hemispheres, acknowledge more than 1 type of intelligence, stop standing on the foundations of their forefathers in a quantum world they don't know how to get to with their own work, and stop having ai peer review their "discoveries". They might have a say, but their gatekeeping on left brain what passed for success is over
The whole "fixed mindset" problem is somewhat questionable to me. I have found that I tend to gravitate too much toward a "growth mindset." Is that possible? My life experience would say yes. I have a really hard time settling on a identity--any identity. I have often tried very hard to do things that I was not actually capable of (that is not fun). I have continued searching for my identity long after adolescence. MBTI gives me some clarity. I WISH I had more of a fixed mindset... Life would be easier. Growth mindset = neurotic. Go ahead and do the comparison. Maybe you'll see what I mean. There's a balance, of course. Some people could definitely afford to embrace more of a growth mindset. I just think there's too much focus on growth mindset as the better mindset when it has its own issues.
May seem silly, but I'm thinking the zodiac actually looks more appropriate for the fixed mentality as a hope to cling to in one's identity because it's *less* scientific than MBTI - meanwhile there's a soft pliability to the science (for lack of a better word) of personality theory that makes it fertile ground for personal growth and development
@@CognitivePersonality mostly skewed against anything Jungian. As useful as his theory was for his time, science has, quite unfortunately, not looked back on him fondly.
I think MBTI is a target because it speaks to why someone might make a choice, not what choice they will make. OCEAN proponents seek to predict the future--they want to know how well a person will do and what they must do to be better. I see MBTI as explaining why a person does what they do, not predicting how well they will do something, feel something or succeed. Apples and oranges.
It varies between individuals, but generally the pull of the authority function is so strong that its natural antagonist (the function in question) is suppressed. So, yes, there is often a blindspot in this regard :)
16:16 By fixating on Katherine's view as the only accurate view, the author proves their theory that MBTI is not real science. If you include other practitioners as being worthy and able of expanding the Theory, you open it up as at least moderately more scientific. It'd be like saying Einstein's theories are immutable.
IQ is often relative to confident Ne-Te/Te-Ne observation - it is this lens/codec duo that perceives the patterns necessary. However, Se-dip is also required for the more intricate patterns and mathematical sequences require a level of Ti-Si internalisation. Generally a distractable inner world and logical dissociation would be antagonistic to the focus required, too. INTPs, ENTJs, ENTPs and ISTJs tend to perform well - these types are highly attuned to Te-Ne while confident locking on to task at hand alongside a specific thinking style. Other types can be equally excellent at such tasks but more given to individual variation - two equally intelligent INFPs can receive significantly different scores relative to dissociation and Ni-distractibility. I'd say the same for ISFPs too.
The more I watch this channel, the more I realize how CPT is truly the best MBTI theory we have. CPT simultaneously accounts for people's variation in their behavior according to which functions they are prioritizing, and is consistent enough to make logical deductions about how people interact with their environment. CPT also encourages people to have a growth mindset, rather than mainstream MBTI's habit of putting people into little boxes they can't come out of. I hope more and more people in the MBTI community will embrace CPT.
I agree CPT is great but its not the only sub theory that does this. Jungian Depth Psychology and CS Joseph's theories also do this and contain pathways for growth.
This is a bit of a "pre-watch" statement, but has anyone noticed that no article that talks of the MBTI, especially the Vox one, does not bring up cognitive functions? Of course dichotomies change, I can literally go from INFP to ESTJ in the flip of a switch using that logic. Cognitive functions allow for the fluidity between types while keeping that base thought process. It isn't about personality, it's about *cognition.*
You can be an Ne user and have the ability to plan because personality doesn't equal "personality." You can be an INTP while being incredibly emotional because thinking dosen't equal a lack of emotions. Everyone is intuitive and sensing, everyone is feeling and thinking, and so on.
Excellent points! I agree there is indeed a trend of these articles to dismiss the cognitive functions :)
I would add however that I believe the cognitive functions within classic MBTI are more metaphorical as measurements of 'preferred function', which absolutely changes. I constructed the social archetypes of CPT to allow for this while keeping core cognition relatively constant.
@@CognitivePersonality That's interesting, for sure. I've always subscribed to the "you can't change type." Not really that you can't masquerade as another, but at the end of the day, you have the base functions that you developed from the beginning of your life. Of course, a different perspective can do a long way.
The internet needs ONE clear and comprehensive article on the MBTI. That is - on the test that indicates your type. After that, we can all get down to business (debate/discussion on the possible truths & falsehoods of the cognitive functions).
@@twilbry7807 Precisely. You put it better than I ever could.
“The first step to getting out of prison is realizing that you are in prison”.
We are all in a unique prison based on our ego defense structures. These structures have similar and different underlying and overlapping patterns. Or we could say it’s based on cognitive predisposition, or a combination of both.
A good “Personality” or “Cognitive” “typing” system is not designed to be a diagnostic tool. That would be telling someone, “You are in the New York State Prison and other people are in different prisons”.
That statement would do very little to aid in a jailbreak.
A good typing system sheds light on how a particular individual can use their specific strengths to pick the locks of their own cell, and provides a map to the underground tunnels through which they can escape.
If a person chooses to use a typology system to endlessly study the bars of their own cell, or other’s cells, and becomes fascinated by them, instead of getting out, that person would probably relate to life in general that way.
If another person understood that the system is not diagnostic, but a helpful map, they would embark on the mission of getting out of jail.
Taking an MBTI test, Enneagram test, etc. is not in itself a dangerous thing. This whole lifetime is a chance to either reinforce what we think we already know, or explore our blind spots and use that exploration to become more free. We can use absolutely anything we encounter for either of these purposes.
It’s only relevant if something is “science” if an individual would feel more confident using a scientific map. Some people do. And science is incredible, essential, and highly useful. But in my opinion, dwelling on this question of how scientific it is, misses the point.
Love this! We are of the same mind on this matter!
This video could have been called: "Holistic Introverted Thinking Grievances with Exploitative Extroverted Thinking Practices"
XD I enjoyed this analysis, and it is refreshing to see you keeping the faith and advocating for a continued pursuit of holistic cognition, my friend! ^_^ As always, Thank you :D
Hahaha that hits the nail on the head! Thank you my friend!
“Experts” get angry and overreact when people are given a tool to self-assess without paying said “experts” to do it for them. It’s the old, “you can’t be trusted to assess that because you didn’t get the degree”...Oh, boo hoo...not all of us are idiots!
I hear you on that one!
And, in my experience, there can be an awful lot of idiot in an "expert"
Yep, it's like guilds vying for exclusive rights to overpriced knowledge in an era wherein mere knowledge is commoditized and ear-prostitutes worry over getting their $300 per hour for pretending to listen to others who could just as easily complain and gossip to friends for free. Heck, doctors, actual doctors, often google things that people independently research in more depth, like epitomized in Lorenzo's Oil and a similar thing of autodidacticism was done in Good Will Hunting. Doctors and the like get lazy and think their fancy toilet paper means they're always right no matter how wrong they are.
Agreed. And that very much reminds me of, er, Objective Personality.
@@cazbee6126 Not only that. A whole lot of ego in an "expert". A big walking, breathing egotrap.
I admire your willingness to tackle this subject.
It's honestly quite enjoyable to do so!
@@CognitivePersonality testing as an extrovert, bouncy extrovert lol you are so funny.
all the things you said in this video sounded very reasonable to me. youtube and mbti community in particular need more content like yours!
"The existence of distinct ways of perceiving would seem self-evident. People perceive through their senses, and they also perceive things that are not and never have been present to their senses. The (MBTI) theory adds the suggestion that the two kinds of perception compete for a person’s attention and that most people, from infancy up, enjoy one more than the other. When people prefer sensing, they are so interested in the actuality around them that they have little attention to spare for ideas coming faintly out of nowhere....
As soon as children exercise a preference between the two ways of perceiving, a basic difference in development begins. The children have enough command of their mental processes to be able to use the favorite processes more often and to neglect the processes they enjoy less. Whichever process they prefer, whether sensing or intuition, they will use more, paying closer attention to its stream of impressions and fashioning their idea of the world from what the process reveals. The other kind of perception will be background, a little out of focus.
"
Myers, Isabel Briggs. Gifts Differing: Understanding Personality Type . Quercus. Kindle Edition.
Love this!
I really love you saying that MBTI is a metaphor. That's exactly what I think of it. A beautiful and small language or lens to understand certain aspects of people.
This!
@@CognitivePersonality Have you decided that you're an INTJ or INFJ? I haven't watched too many of your recent videos so I'm not sure. 😅
You seem more INTJ to me. 🙃
@@nkopanelesedilebona9227 Dichotomies-wise I am more ENTJ/INTJ, but my functions are Ni-Ti/Se-Fe so I am forced into the INFJ type code. The CPT type code of INT-Fs suits me far better :D
@@CognitivePersonality Thanks, I've been meaning to get into CPT, I haven't really started yet. Hopefully I'll be able to understand that last one soon. You're my prime RUclips recommendation for typology newcomers.
MBTI is something we should teach children, not something we should use to label / mislabel them.
YESSSSSS. To everything you say. I wish I could make arguments this well
Haha, glad to receive a unanimous YES in this regard :D
Thanks for recommending the video Michelle! ฅ^•ﻌ•^ฅ
@@nkopanelesedilebona9227 Thanks for checking it out!!
OMG I can't even begin to tell you how much I needed to hear this!! I had an argument with someone the other day and they weren't ready to listen to why MBTI wasn't "inaccurate"
I do not mean to defend the author but I don't blame them. I'm sure we are all aware of the misinformation and ignorance in the MBTI community. One has to be genuinely and deeply interested in it to learn how much nuiance there is to it. Hence, I think it might be accurate to say the author based their knowledge off the superficial and 'corrupted' knowledge most people have about MBTI (which, sadly, continues to be progated).
Well said. I like the 'analytical philosophy'-based style of yours :)
I just want to add a bit about "the science" people (even with PhD) might be referring to hopefully clear up some misunderstandings. I think nowadays those who talk a lot about "science", use this term (at best) in the context of the obsolete 'logical positivism' without knowing it. They think the role of science is "to prove" things by experiment. Ironically, if we work in that school of thought, we'd never consider 'psychology' as a science. In the next level, i.e. in the school of 'falsifiability', even Popper himself considered Freud's psychoanalysis a pseudo-science. Though fortunately a lot changed regarding how to view science and scientific method, after the works of influential philosophers such as Lakatos, Kuhn and Feyerabend. I think that was when "science" returned to its source/home again (before WWII) when it was "natural philosophy".
You might find it strange that even within the physics community, there were times (even nowadays but with somewhat less intensity) that the majority considered some (in hindsight) important theories as not being "scientific". This was mainly due to the pragmatist (semi-military based) mindset that took over after the WWII. Prior to this unfortunate era, we had Nobel-winning physicists who revolutionized science such as Wolfgang Pauli who became deeply influenced by Carl Jung. They became lifelong friends and they both collaborated on some concepts like 'synchronicity'. We had Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg,... , who didn't differentiate between science and mysticism, between physics and metaphysics, between subjective and the objective. Should I mention Newton and his obsession with alchemy?
Anyway, whenever someone mentions that something is not "scientific", I tend to remind him/her about these stuff (if I care about them or respect them of course, else I wouldn't bother) and how they should reconsider their definitions/views on science (or at least regarding physics which I'm involved with). Finally, I'd like to end it with this quote by Pauli:
"In my own view it is only a narrow passage of truth (no matter whether scientific or other truth) that passes between the Scylla of a blue fog of mysticism and the Charybdis of a sterile rationalism. This will always be full of pitfalls and one can fall down on both sides."
Love this comment - I didn't know about the connection between Jung and Wolfgang Pauli! 'Analytical-philosophy' - this sums it up nicely and is a wonderful compliment :)
@@CognitivePersonality We have also the infamous "Pauli effect" :) Pleasure is mine sir!
I am a mostly serious, now kinda senior level scientist in a related area and oh yes, people have had a lot of disdain for MBTI for a long time! I don’t know what they think about the recent resurgence in popularity but I think it mainly stems from some reliability issues (personality researchers tended to use the big five or other models) and the fact/perception that Myers Briggs was used more in practical/employment settings and not as open/public/science-oriented.
I on the other hand have always had a highly stable type since my teens, think it is helpful for self understanding or add a complementary perspective, and have always thought it was hilarious that people almost act irate when you bring it up like it matters so much that you took a quiz they don’t like!
But that kind of judgemental attitude is not uncommon in the establishment science/ academia/ mental health complex, unfortunately - where this ENTP unquietly suffers. ;)
Very interesting that your type has remained consistent! The rather arbitary manner in which MBTI has previously been applied has, as you say, likely left a bad taste in the mouth of the scientific community.
Haha, that sounds tough indeed!
Modern psychology has a serious problem. First of all, it is based on the study of pathology in human behaviour and does not pay attention to how different we are and how we are in our "best condition". Secondly, it is based on the theory of one person and his derivatives (Freud).
Thus, it is limited only to the carnality of the person, which is a fundamental mental error.
MBTi, as a more developed version of Jung's and Enneagram's ideas, seems to me better to know who we are, or how we act.
Anyway, when we look at other areas of so-called "science" we find a "mental concrete" everywhere, behind which there is really big money spent to change a person's thinking into more comfortable for a payer.
PS: I hope is readable. I'm not English native speaker.
I love that last part - you're right, most of the more scientifically valid typological concepts are used as marketting/political tools to actively encourage particular traits. Cheers for the great comment!
It’s a tool for self introspection. I did it in my 20’s and found it invaluable. Wouldn’t necessarily agree with parents getting children to do it.
For sure :)
Very interesting video, Harry. I enjoyed this a lot. The way I see identity is in two parts. I believe we need a foundational identity to ground us to our values, ethics and a faith if we have one. If we don't have that, we can be pulled and blown all over the place and I've seen that cause a lot of mental distress for people. The other I view as a secondary identity. To me, holding on too tightly to the latter is what gives people a fixed mindset. Our secondary identity should be fluid and it does change through out our lives with knowledge and experience. Also, science is important, but it's also not to be all and end all of all things either. As with most things in life, I believe there needs to be a balance between faith and science. There are some things it simply cannot measure and other things it can.
Agreed! One should also strive to create one's foundation absent stereotypes and theoretical frameworks whenever possible. I also believe people can tend to confuse the latter with the former when it comes to type :)
Cheers for the great comment!
@@CognitivePersonality thanks :) I have a follow up comment. What does, this is a bit of a strawman mean? Something that doesn't fit correctly into the framework? We don't have that expression in Canada and I'm too curious for my own good lol. I've never heard it before. Does it have it's origins in the ancient ritual of the burning straw man of the celts?
@Seneca Black oh cool, thanks for looking that up! That makes sense in the context of the video. Here I was thinking maybe this is linked to the notorious wicker man or something. Something described by the romans that may or may not be true anyway.
@@melbeth79
(My thoughts exactly regarding the Wickerman! XD )
Some salient points well expressed here! You present a very balanced argument in response to the article. :-) I think I'm going to have to get hold of a copy of your book, there's so much I need to learn...!
Thanks so much! For the comment and potential buying of book - I'd love to know what you think!
@@CognitivePersonality
Deal. I'll write you another poem! (Maybe) 😉
As a throw away child I typed people not know what I was doing. It keep me self. I could see or tell what others were capably off. Back in my day it was called stereo typing.
Hello, what are your thoughts on the Enneagram? Do you know much about it and have you ever attempted to cross reference between the two systems?
I think healthy skepticism is important in all personality work, and to use it in a wider context of other growth practices, if thats what you are using it for. There is a lot that exists beyond evidence based processes that we as humans have not yet developed an understanding of. I have been able to develop a personal growth practice from my Enneagram and MBTI knowledge that has helped me so much, but in the past I have misused it a lot because I was alone in figuring out the most beneficial applications of it.
Thanks for the videos, it's great to see people who work with the Enneagram and MBTI in ethical and sensible ways that specifically lay out the intricacies of what is happening and understand the importance of recognizing the delicacy and sensitivity associated with interacting with people's psyches.
I enjoy and appreciate the enneagram for as long as it is on a fluid spectrum - I do not believe one's enneagram is the variables in question are given to change. I do, however, consider it a nice tool to describe how someone is 'right now' :)
I enjoyed your critique of the article. It seems they could have put more effort into bolstering their point with data and relied on "experts" making emotional arguments too heavily. MBTI or any other psychological test shouldn't be given to children unless it's under the guidance of a mental health professional. Testing alone can bring up distressing things that may need to be handled carefully. School districts are guilty of this all the time though. The military gives periodic "aptitude" tests through schools in the US and then coincidentally you're on a mailing list for military enrollment campaigns and colleges. They're optional but not presented that way. There's other outside testing that has nothing to do with educational concerns occurring and parents are just given a glossed over reason for why it's needed when it's simply data mining that benefits the school somehow. My spitfire mother was happy to write absence notes for those days that let the school know exactly what she thought of all this 😂
Thanks Jaimie :)
Argh, stuff like that drives me up the wall!!
You deserve an award!
*bows* thank you!
Yes! Thank you fellow truther!
Time to link up! Hmu
Truth all the way!
ruclips.net/video/yvRky9ECXiQ/видео.html
13:41 I think I figured out how to lose my INFJ dummy look. In a large crowd I go in my head. I'm aware of what's going on around me and keep up in a conversation.
Science have been wrong in so many cases througout history and has to be corrected because of new discoveries...so what's true today can be false tomorrow...I have my own truth and not all of it are based on Science.
I wish more people knew what an INFJ is and knew more about how to relate to one...because that would make my life so much easier 😬
Theory begets science :)
Yes science has been wrong many times and there have been several impressive stuck times in growth from that. The geocentric view of the solar system took several hundred years to break free of. Science has its own myopia, incidentally I studied physics in university and then got my diploma in Computer Science. I tend to keep my feet in several camps, psychology, science and certain ideas that have mystical connotations. To me they all hold value and I can connect them all together. Then again I am ENFP and a core ENFP idea is everything is connected. ENFPs are deeply holistic entities or at least this one is, which is why we are so misunderstood in this divided world.
There is no such thing as "my truth". Truth is truth, and there is only one. We just try to get as close to it as we can.
Thankyou for addressing this in a concise way.
No problem :)
As a species, we have only been talking about a "scientific method" for a couple centuries; truth, values, and the human experience go back far longer. I am not anti-science (my PhD advisor would KILL me if I were!), but science is just one way of knowing - and science is only as unbiased as the mindset of its practitioners. Garbage in, garbage out.
*
That being said, I *do* appreciate the steps CPT is taking to apply a more scientific approach to cognition. I really don't see this as being in competition with MBTI; it's just applying a Jungian-derived framework to a different sphere, a different purpose. MBTI addresses one need, and CPT meets a different need. I use MBTI-speak to communicate my ideals; I'm learning CPT to understand my cognitive processes.
*
All of this is to say that something can be unscientific, but still be a useful, valuable tool. The archetypes of MBTI give people a common language, a common vocabulary to discuss personal differences that would otherwise be mutually unintelligible. In contrast, CPT seems to be targeting cognition, which is a different (and at least as valuable) matter altogether. I've said before that I like to think of MBTI like the Hogwarts Sorting Hat: there might be some category that technically "suits" you better, but ultimately, YOU get to decide what you value - YOU get to decide which house you go to. It's a statement of value, of aspiration, of the sort of path you envision yourself being on.
*
Or, more precisely, I'm reminded of a quote from Doctor Who: "Look, my name, my real name, that is not the point. The name I chose is the Doctor. The name you choose, it's like a promise you make."
Or, taken from Harry Potter:
“Tell me one last thing," said Harry. "Is this real? Or has this been happening inside my head?"
"Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?”
...although, in a sense, even the most scientific approach to cognition is technically happening inside one's head!
These two comments are awesome. Just wanted to say that 😊
@Susana A My argument is that something doesn't have to be scientific to be useful.
I like to say, everyone creates it's own reality.
If one wants to fit in a box then he/she will change to do so.
And I understand putting a label into a person may provide such a box. And this can prevent growth.
But as I first came to CPT I was impressed by how much you emphasized your goal to help people growth and that everyone can overcome his type.
Exactly, this way type can move from a box to a gateway :)
This is postmodernism bullshit. MBTI is scientific, and it's valuable. You are just justifying pseudoscience to justify MBTI when it's complitelly unnecessary and counterproductive to MBTI being respected, because then it's when people say MBTI is just like astrology.
Very interesting Harry, as usual :)
Thank you Francois! :)
why do people ALWAYS go to "What about the children!" when it has absolutely nothing to do with them lmao... I just don't understand
Accurately and eloquently said.
Thank you!! :)
What’s your opinion on the 4 sides of the mind. Ego, Unconscious mind, Subconscious mind, and super ego. Each being a different type that each develop at different stages of life.
The comment by YJM here echoes much of my own thoughts on the subject :)
I would also add that the four corners are a little too arbitrary for my liking - a presumption is made that flipping a cognitive stack four times corresponds to four distinct cognitive types within the psyche.
Our cognitive stack is always fluidly morphing and dipping into other function allignments, and there is more than a single axis for the functions to rotate on. As such, limiting the psyche to four types firstly overlooks the lens-codec axis (the ESFP of an ENTJ, so to speak), and secondly assumes the four 'neatest' types to form from a cognitive stack are the most influential.
Personally I find the 4 sides to have some legitimacy in my experience analyzing the types. I’ve interviewed and analyzed multiple people of each type and find the subconscious mind portion to be quite accurate and useful. (ENFJ)
Could you do a video explaining how you favor Te but remain INFJ and how it could work with other types?
Ah, a '16 Types of Te' video is a great idea!
how do you mean cognitive functions are metaphorical? all i know is that memories pop in my head sometimes, i’ll be sorting out how i think something works in my head for like 30 minutes in the shower, i feel feelings, i get ideas,,, aren’t these the results different processes that the human brain runs? the results of these functions functioning?
Cognitive functions can be used either as styles of processing as within CPT, or more as metaphors for values like in MBTI :)
When the scientific and academic communities are working on synchronized brain hemispheres, acknowledge more than 1 type of intelligence, stop standing on the foundations of their forefathers in a quantum world they don't know how to get to with their own work, and stop having ai peer review their "discoveries". They might have a say, but their gatekeeping on left brain what passed for success is over
The whole "fixed mindset" problem is somewhat questionable to me. I have found that I tend to gravitate too much toward a "growth mindset." Is that possible? My life experience would say yes. I have a really hard time settling on a identity--any identity. I have often tried very hard to do things that I was not actually capable of (that is not fun). I have continued searching for my identity long after adolescence. MBTI gives me some clarity. I WISH I had more of a fixed mindset... Life would be easier. Growth mindset = neurotic. Go ahead and do the comparison. Maybe you'll see what I mean.
There's a balance, of course. Some people could definitely afford to embrace more of a growth mindset. I just think there's too much focus on growth mindset as the better mindset when it has its own issues.
May seem silly, but I'm thinking the zodiac actually looks more appropriate for the fixed mentality as a hope to cling to in one's identity because it's *less* scientific than MBTI - meanwhile there's a soft pliability to the science (for lack of a better word) of personality theory that makes it fertile ground for personal growth and development
Ahh yes, the poison is in the dose afterall!
How about you ask all university professors about it.
Would love to hear psychology professors from around the world weigh in! The opinions will likely be divided :)
@@CognitivePersonality mostly skewed against anything Jungian. As useful as his theory was for his time, science has, quite unfortunately, not looked back on him fondly.
I think MBTI is a target because it speaks to why someone might make a choice, not what choice they will make. OCEAN proponents seek to predict the future--they want to know how well a person will do and what they must do to be better. I see MBTI as explaining why a person does what they do, not predicting how well they will do something, feel something or succeed. Apples and oranges.
Nicely portrayed! Seeking to demonstrate a person's values it is nonetheless easy for people to go on to presume from them another person's choices.
Just curious, what do you think about the idea that there is a blindspot or polr function?
It varies between individuals, but generally the pull of the authority function is so strong that its natural antagonist (the function in question) is suppressed. So, yes, there is often a blindspot in this regard :)
16:16 By fixating on Katherine's view as the only accurate view, the author proves their theory that MBTI is not real science. If you include other practitioners as being worthy and able of expanding the Theory, you open it up as at least moderately more scientific. It'd be like saying Einstein's theories are immutable.
Completely agreed :)
Hey what’s the smartest personality in your opinion, Iq-wise. Could you list maybe a top four smartest?
IQ is often relative to confident Ne-Te/Te-Ne observation - it is this lens/codec duo that perceives the patterns necessary. However, Se-dip is also required for the more intricate patterns and mathematical sequences require a level of Ti-Si internalisation. Generally a distractable inner world and logical dissociation would be antagonistic to the focus required, too.
INTPs, ENTJs, ENTPs and ISTJs tend to perform well - these types are highly attuned to Te-Ne while confident locking on to task at hand alongside a specific thinking style. Other types can be equally excellent at such tasks but more given to individual variation - two equally intelligent INFPs can receive significantly different scores relative to dissociation and Ni-distractibility. I'd say the same for ISFPs too.
Cognitive Personality Theory Thank you! That is very informative
He talks too fast and doesn’t pause often enough. But it is interesting anyway
Seems like a bunch of ne users not liking conclusions or being indefinitely defined lmao.
Socionics distinguishes differences between cognitive strength and value in the 4D model.
Cool!
Wow so much spin in that magazine.
Dude needs to read blank slate.
Dude found spin captivating.
Blank slate is pseudoscience and has been proven wrong.
Pissed off of what. Got your dander up. Thanks
I bet that one dislike was from the author of the article lol
BIG 5 SUCKS!!!!! (Enneagram is golden)
Hah, ouch!