"When faced with two choices, simply toss a coin. It works not because it settles the question for you, but because in that brief moment when the coin is in the air, you suddently know what you are hoping for." - Unknown
Has that ever actually been true? Rather, don't most, upon flipping the coin and seeing the result, just find that they're unsatisfied with its presentation and opt to remain undecided?
Thank you, ive studied MBTI and cognitive functions and quite enjoy what it taught me about myself. Vox's video seemed to be glossing over the study completely. I don't think MBTI is an all knowing science, but I see it as a tool that can help lead to personal development.
I think the only real flaw in the test is that it's almost impossible to be honest with yourself. I don't even mean people purposefully lie just that they have a bias view or just aren't seeing their personality objectively. For example the test asks a lot about whether or not you area organized person and if you like to plan things out, many people probably think they are organized and will only think about instances that support that thought about themselves even if they have every intention of trying to answer honestly. I typically get INTP when I take the test and I think it suits me quite well but sometimes I do question that result and take the test again and get ENTP I try to answer honestly and think about every question carefully but it still happens. However this is not meant to "debunk" the test I actually think it in itself is very useful an well made it's just the people taking it that are the problem really nothing against them but that's just how it works.
it sounds like horoscope for me. when you dont fit in your astrological sign then someone tell you you should check your rising sign or your moon sign or always tell you some excuse but none personallity test is 100%accurate because nobody can be classified in only 4 words or in an specific type. people just have the need to feel special and fitting in a type make they feel happy.
cristhy nohelia anyaipoma artica I understand, but this isn’t a 1-1 comparison, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of it. The four letters have little value. You need to fully understand the system to refute it. It’s not even that hard either. I share your critical attitude though.
@@Prometheus7272 I dont think some people have just few functions. some people take it like a zodiacal sign. few people take the test wrong also so its hard to know which type or which functions you exactly because everybody reacts to situation depending on their mood, education,beliefs etc.
I’m beginning to think its all a scam. There is no mathematical or scientific basis for it. No one can seem to be on the same page on the cognitive functions.
@@rebekatalebi8046 studying the mind is hard since our perspectives of our and other's mind is subjective, it's only natural for people to view cognitive functions different. After all this is only a guide
I feel that cognitive function is a really hard subject and Jung made a quantum leap on it. So, the model he inspired was very structured and simple yet complex, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is some error here and there about the definition, grouping, naming, or the amount of functions, or other contributing factors. And now people who are interested have to deal with the mess of testing the right model
One of the problems with the MBTI tests is that they are largely self assessments. Can you really trust someone to objectively evaluate their own personality? I think the results of these tests say more about the personality type someone sees as most desirable and wishes they were, than objectively measuring which type best describes them. I don't know if you can write questions that will "trick" the person into revealing their personality type without them being aware of what the test's author is attempting to discern.
That's one of the reason I decided to study more about it and choose my own combination of letters depending on what fits better to my personality. I think its way better and honest. When I do tests I always get frustrated over if the answer its really what I am (or do) and what I want to be (or want to do).
Max Rosario I'm saying, I find test tedious. My answer can change depending on my mood, age, experiences etc. Its even worse when you have to choose a ''intensity'' of something. So, no one know ME, better than I do. It's not that a chose the letters I wanted, I read about what they mean and examples. I found my personality type and I totally agree. Unlike tests where if at certain moment I feel to answer something different my result will be different.
Jess Stuart There is no such thing as "MBTI tests". MBTI is the OFFICIAL TEST. Any other Myers-Briggs/ Kiersey like test are simply copies of the original MBTI. In all cases though the test results should be taken with a grain of salt unless they're administered by a certified practitioner who takes cognitive functions into account. All the PerC fanboys and fangirls who take dozens of tests, mistype progressively worse, and "change" types twice a year should do more research and self discovery and less improvised testing which just becomes worse and worse as you become more adept to manipulate your results. All they accomplish is to feed the misconception that Jungian typology is horoscope like and to make matters worse they get none of the benefits they should be getting.
I have found that people who say that MBTI is useless do not know what it is about. It is a thought process-based tool first and foremost. All resulting behaviors are secondary. Want to know about emotional responses? Study temperaments.Want to know about base motivations? Study enneagram.Want a dynamic system about life paths? Study Ten Terrains.Want a comprehensive analysis of your default personas? Study the Arno Profile System.Want to prove that you are superior to others? I cannot help you there.
Tom Wilson infp island "Ourselves" is the operative word in your post. The MBTI provides a reliable epistemological structure for personal development, especially when employed in conjunction with the Keirsey Temperament construct. The MBTI and Keirsey are complimentary models, the MBTI being a model of differentiation and the Keirsey is a model of integration. This is to say, MBTI takes the functions apart to differentiate their role in creating the personal reality while Keirsey demonstrates how the functions in operation tend to affect our personal unconscious method of acquiring and manipulating data to create information and create the gestalt of our personal realty. In contrast, the Big 5 model seems to have become a format for acquiring the personality profile preferred by corporate HR, whose primary role is to ensure a compliant and docile work force for the CEO. In choosing between the MBTI/Keirsey Temperaments and The Big 5, the choice comes down to a decision to Be All You Can Be or to be Dilbert. estp.
INFJ here. I don't wanna be Dilbert, and I wouldn't want anyone working for me to be Dilbert either. You make it very clear why people in general like MBTI and big corps like the Big 5.
MBTI is either free or cheap... that's why "experts" don't like it. You don't have to pay $100/hr or pay for a prescription. MBTI is a guide, a way of providing some insight towards oneself. I took the test and read about my type... and yes, it did help. For once in my life, I felt understood.
So, it helped because you "felt understood"? How has that help translated into action? You "felt understood" because all results pepper the Barnum effect throughout in order to psychologically trick you into feeling understood. Why? They have a bridge to sell you.
@@MechanicalMooCow At first, that's what I thought. However, I read through all of the other types and they sound nothing like me. From what I understand, it's kind of like a guide... something that gives you a strategy for life.
You've struck the nail on it's head Michael. Props to your research team. If anyone had doubts about the legitimacy of MBTI, I suggest they glance over Jungian functions. It's truly unfortunate that a system that's helped so many people rediscover themselves, gets a bad rep in 2016.
I'm not even that passionate about the MBTI subject, but after the video by Vox had me waste several minutes of my life with their fallacies (not to mention questionable claims, as you have exposed), I felt inclined to waste some more time writing a point-by-point rundown on their stupidity. Thankfully, you have provided just that, and also a much better use of my time with your video. My mind is at peace again. :)
I have been using MBTI for decades in work as well as personally and it's been very helpful indeed. However, one big caveat seems to involve accuracy across cultures, e.g., in some cultures almost everyone tests out to be the same type. I assume this distortion was a function of questions asked, nuanced wording and translation, and a culture's bias toward group-think and group behaviour (much of Asia). However new versions of the test may have solved these issues, I don't know.
It's really helpful. My relationship with my parents began better than it was before. It's a useful tool that you need to know how to use if you want it to work
Mbti is fun. And I enjoy it very much. Just like I occasionally enjoy horoscopes even though I'm a scientist :) But there is little scientific grounding for mbti. Clinical psychologists do use personality tests. They use the big 5. Research psychologists almost exclusively use the big 5. You can't publish a paper in a peer review journal using mbti measurements as your source of data. Workplace success, performance, etc. have been found to correlate very well with certain big 5 measures. But not with mbti measures. Mbti functions are just a philosophical construct that is the consequence of faulty logic. They have no meaning whatsoever. Are not related to what the questions in the test are designed to measure. People are encouraged to "explore" the types and decide which one they belong to rather than just relying on the test score. Which is obscene for a psychological test. Imagine if people were encouraged to "explore" the IQ scale for example and decide where they fit, regardless of their actual iq score. MBTI fails on every possible criterion for a good test. It is furthermore based on false dichotomies. It takes data that is distributed on a curve with most people falling around the middle, and rounds it to a 0-1 integer. It is not derived from a modern theory of personality or a thorough search of personality concepts or anything related to brain anatomynor physiology. It is based on an outdated theory of personality from a hundred years ago. I like jung very much and I enjoy reading his work. But I would highly reccomend that people read it as some kind of philosophical or literary work. It is not sience.
To me, there is credence in the MBTI system as it provides insight into thinking and tendency preferences. It is a guide, not a bible into the human grey matter.
Do you think cognitive functions are false? Empirically, I believe they are completely real even though they have not been associated with parts of the brain scientifically. Doesn't mean that won't happen in the future though. I mean mbti is literally a tool to tell you which cognitive functions you use, and in what order.
I have not taken any other personality test which impressed me more than MBTI. I get that it’s far from perfect, but I don’t believe calling it “totally meaningless” is correct either. It just categorizes people into 16 personality types and definitely doesn’t describe your personality completely. You cannot find two people who are completely identical personality wise.
Well researched video, thanks for posting it. It would be nice if the MBTI/Functions community could in fact produce objective, consistent results. You ask any two practitioners "what type is this person?" and you always get different opinions. The scientific community loves to point this out. Would be nice to solve that someday. Anyway, love the work you do in Functions.
I have found MTBI to be a very reliable and helpful tool in understanding interpersonal dynamics between my friends, family and myself. It takes some reading and study to understand why each personality type is described as such, though, and how where each person falls on the four spectrums helps to define the whole personality. When I first learned about it, I was quick to dismiss it as another internet personality test until i learned of it's rigorous scientific origins. I agree that the Vox video's claims were a quite small pot of evidence vs the heaps of study and evidence gathered that is consistently applied to the MTBI to make it more accurate. This one is worth the time to learn about, it's study has enriched my life.
The Myers Briggs test has its place and I found it to be very useful. As a matter of fact it does help us look at ourselves objectively. It's a good tool for self understanding but it was never intended to be a box that you stick yourself into. Knowing my own personality type has helped me hope with life better and find ways to handle things that fit my personality in my way of doing things.
Funny. Upon insistence of my immature insecure narcissistic borderline now ex-GF I met with her therapist. I had not done MBTI before that and I have worked as an analyst, in media, legal field and governance, as CEO and I speak several languages, that should tell something. The therapist suggested I turn off my analytical approach and let "feelings and emotions" in. What a bunch of crap to hear for an INTJ!
I've often wanted to write an article about this entitled 'The Baby in the Bathwater'. (If anyone wants to steal that idea and write it instead, go ahead.) I have my own issues with the Big Five system, and I'm not alone, as it has more recently been found to lack cross-cultural validity, with its measurements only working for major industrialised nations. I also strongly dislike that it appears to favour extroversion, and view introversion in a negative light, and I'm not sure neuroticism should even be a scale, especially when it's plainly obvious which questions will amp up the neuroticism score. That said, I would never want to get rid of the Big Five test. Many of these tests ask essentially the same questions and use the same sliding scales, so I'd like to make one big test that spits out scores in multiple formats. These tests clearly measure different things, so why not let them compliment each other?
So scientists say it's not a valid theory, because not much official research has been done on it. But then they decide not to do research on it, because it's not a valid theory? What? If people would just take the casual, unofficial research done into MBTI by armchair psychologists a tad more seriously, then maybe we'd be making a lot more advancements in common knowledge of psychology and science as a whole. Hmm.
i got an INFJ a selfless sensitive thinker which kinda got me to know more about myself, sometime i have doubt on the MBTI test though. shouldn't really count on the test too much also...well yet, because over time were still trying to figure out the way how a human brain functions over its emotions and shit. its actually pretty amazing how everyone is going through alot of research over time.
Damn People need to take cognitive functions into account, it's ridiculous to try to undermine the credibility of a theory when you don't know shit about it.
The MBTI actually needs an additional layer of testing. You can actually type people with less than 10 questions in my experience. However really sorting out high performing (say intj) from other intj needs a lot more testing.
Number Eight agreed, apparently im an intj, i dont disagree either. everything they say perfectly describes me but i am the most laziest person on earth. so i guess its more so about the person. =| potato please?
If mbti is meaningless I wonder how I'm able to guess a majortiy of people their type right that I meet (and that indeed know their type). I must have psychic abilities!
You just guess it, doesn't mean your judgement is correct. Many people get it wrong when they guess someone's type especially based on "vibes" which is just false repeated stereotype.
The big problem I have is the idea that it really seems to be built on this idea there are only 16 types which are discrete, when as has been said, the majority of psychology research suggests that personality traits -- however you measure them -- are a continuous gradiation. Someone who scores 48 on an "extroversion" scale and someone who scores 52, where 50 is your cutoff between introverted and extroverted _are not going to be all that different_ on this personality dimension, yet MBTI type theory suggests there is a dramatic difference, esp. with Jung's functions theory which suggests they think quite different. All because they just fall on two sides of an arbitrary cutoff. But that is nonsense, as far as can be told with psychology. Our human brains are continuously variable in their wiring, apportionment of neurons between regions, and other factors. It doesn't make any sense for them to display such sharp boundaries just looking at basic biology and neuroscience. I'd think if there were discrete types, it would have popped up in other psychological research under different guises, from people who _didn't_ believe in the MBTI, and that itself would have probably led researchers to take MBTI much more seriously. (By the way, both Vox and CelebrityTypes, what you would be really wanting to look at is neither clinical psychologists nor employers, but rather research psychologists in personality psychology. That is the _exact_ field which covers this issue.) MBTI would do best to ditch the type thing and just report 4 graduated scores, one on each scale. I would be more interested in seeing how the MBTI corporation supposedly increased the reliability with giving the dichotomized type. Maybe they just got the testing procedure and materials accurate enough to minimize the score fluctuations between retakes of the tests, not that somehow there's been a more clear discovery of a discreteness phenomenon that I think would have showed up in other research. The test is not meaningless, just rather crude in its picturing of human personality differences. It's like trying to draw pictures with only a 16-color palette ala ancient Microsoft Windows. (Or perhaps an 8-color one where (r,g,b) has values 0 or 1 only for each element, 0 being black and 1 being maximum brightness of that color channel. And then try to draw a realistic picture with that. It's not totally worthless, but it is very, very restricted, resulting in a probably very abstract, impressionistic drawing, not in a rich photo-realistic one.) Crude pictures are not useless either, but they can be misleading if one is not aware of their crudeness or their pitfalls, and the last thing we want is yet another form of stereotyping, especially when it comes to hiring decisions.
I'm in a rush so didn't see the start of your comment but the last bit caught my eye. Mainly because you touch on a specific metaphor I keep in mind regarding mbti. That is the thing, it is NOT 16 colours, it is every shade of blue, every shade of grey, every shade of purple etc the point mbti makes is that if you look at a colour, generally speaking, you can identify it. Does the lightest red look the same as the darkest? or a red heavy in blue look the same as one heavy in orange? Nope, but when you see them both, will you say "that is red", because it falls under that umbrella and is identifiable as such. What you're thinking of is the 16 stereotypes, but those stereotypes are examples of the types in their healthiest and most mature states, unfortunately probably the majority of human beings are not fully mature or healthy, which is where we get all our varying shades of red. These differences and imbalances are all discussed in the theory, they can make people of the same type develop very differently. Type simply describes the basis, what is built upon it is another thing altogether, a person who was abused throughout their childhood is hardly going to be the same as one who wasn't, even if they share the same type basis. As an example people who have experienced difficult or traumatic experiences may be much more involved in their inferior function, to the point they could mistake it for their dominant, this person will not look the same as either their type or the type they would be if their functions were switched upside down, because their development has been interrupted and mangled by their life experiences. And this is the case for everyone, hence everyone really is an individual, a very distinct shade of red, but they are red none the less.(or whatever their identifiable colour/type may be).
So you are suggesting to use the type categories like the names we give colors on the color spectrum, a qualitative description but not a quantitative one? That idea is good, but the trouble is, there are still some problems with that and MBTI theory. The problem is that the MBTI theory does not say that the types shade into each other, it insists on them being binary and mutually incompatible. Furthermore it suggests they represent objectively distinct constructs, not simply conventional/qualitative appellations to what is in reality a continuous construct. The second problem is that being "in the middle" is not exceptional; rather, it is the norm: the traits are normally, not bimodally, distributed meaning that the population clusters around the middle and extreme levels are unusual. Furthermore, when we look at a color spectrum running from, say, red to blue, the middle is not something we would call either red or blue, but rather a third color, purple. If anything, the MBTI should have at least three options on each axis, not two. That would give 81 types, not 16. The middle is so common that to _not_ give it its own type category would seem rather lacking.
I took an MBTI test a few months ago. Questions were things like "I enjoy going to parties," etc. I get the impression that while this test does accurately measure peoples' personalities at that moment, a person's type is not fixed. For example, if I deliberately went out every day to be social and partied a lot, would I not score higher on Extraversion? This is not even to bring up the problems with self assessment. The idea that you can take a 30 minute test and accurately place people within one of 16 personality types (which are fixed from childhood on) is ludicrous to me.
The key concept is that each part is a spectrum; everyone must extrovert and introvert, everyone uses sensing and intuition, thinking and feeling, perceiving and judging. Each assigned letter denotes a preference, often with a degree for how much. Many of the words don't quite mean what you think they might at first glance. I have found that studying the theory behind the tests and learning about the research that has gone into refining it very enriching. The MTBI website describes how each of the letters relate to one another and help form the larger personality. I relate the concept that the personality types generally don't change to how humans are creatures of habit. We find a way we prefer to do things, that works, and tend to stick to it. However, over time we do change and grow. If anything, the mental functions described by MTBI start with stronger preferences in one direction or another, and generally become more balanced as people stop leaning so heavily on one vs another. For instance, I was very heavily in the Thinking side of the decision making spectrum growing up. I often mismanaged my feelings, easily angered or consumed by fear, etc. Only now in my late twenties is the other side, Feeling, becoming more mature and properly handled. Consequentially, that fits very accurately with the description of my type ISTP, where Thinking is my primary mental function, and Feeling is my weakest.
STEM Tutor The difference between “liking” or enjoying parties is different from the act of regularly going- you can attend every party in a 10 km radius and still not *like* going. It seems people misinterpret the questions quite often, and that adds to the confusion.
I think the test is helpful in self discovery and personal gain for being self aware and grants a level of self confidence and reassurance in your personal overarching strengths and weaknesses. I believe once organizations start to classify people this way and place them in boxes, we as a society will be in big trouble... the George Orwell Big Brother type trouble where you can be discriminated against and not hired or not accepted if you become required to tell schools, organizations, and businesses what you are. If this becomes a standard procedure and required like drug screening tests or required on resumes, it could mean we are slowly creeping towards a totalitarian or dictatorship style leadership. This test should be no more important than a buzzfeed personality test, nothing more.
I've already come to the conclusion the MBTI test is flawed (the 16 category makes some sense but it's still very vague and pidgeon holing people) since the questions are easy to interpret and anyone wanting to be seen a certain way will mold the answers to their ideal.
Is the 50% difference result quoted at 3:30 over a single dimension or the whole type quadruple? If the latter is the case, this is pretty close to what you would expect with the cosistency numbers of 80-90% on each dimension shown at 4:32.
Maybe those prestigious psychologists undermine MBTI Theory because they must do so,otherwise their business could be thwarted.In other words,if they propose to promote this kind of tool,many people will regain their inner self and will have less problems.Less problems=Less money towards "Psychology Industry". And yes! in a vast percentage psychologists are businessmen.We could think of Eisenberg for instance who was psychiatric and confessed to have invented ADHD in order to take benefit.Never believe in those who make a constant and negative judge towards something because they are probably conceiling their real thoughts for convenience. I believe in MBTI,I have used it for a year and I have realised so many things...!
I am always in the mid-sixties on openess, in the mid-twenties on concientousnessness, in the mid-thirties in extroversion, in the mid-nineties in agreeableness, and in the mid-nineties in neuroticism. Despite my feminine nature, I am a man. I do not, however, fit into the traditional ideas surrounding masculinity. In my experience, I don’t fit the INFP model described, though INFP and ENFP descriptions are still closer to my experience than other types, but I find the descriptions online a bit overly positive. I don’t see meaning in everything, nor do I look at the world with childlike wonder. I am a nihilist and an agnostic atheist trying to move out of the bible belt. Likely due to my life experiences, I’m more of a friendly cynic than an idealist. Micheal Pierce, do you think that by not including Neurotism, the MBTI is obsolete...even if iit isn’t “meaningless” as Vox said?
I get different results: INFJ, INFP, and INTJ. But it's wrong to say that it's "pointless." I always find the questions of different tests to be questionable and situational.
The marketing of the concept regulated by different companies on the internet has its own management to capture the attention of potential customers. Most tests have their own form of "superficial attraction", which is not something to be despised, after all, it's only a fact how the marketing process works and how companies even lead to growth. The serious scrutiny one should ask for himself is what do I do with the information a test can assign? Because it is only in the act of the individual who performs the test that can actually determine how reliable information about one's "personality" is or how valid it is.If you only do a test and do not use the information to something, you only get the pleasure of identifying something that gives it a fixed value of a certain truth.Which ultimately has no relevance at all, depending on how you act. The exaggerated skeptical view of the whole personality theory is solely to one or more individuals may characterize shortcomings but not explain, as well as refer to specific scientific studies that have drawn critical conclusions about personality theory .If you have to say something about their skeptical view, if you base it on the premise that they can not accept the opposite of what they claim to be not true or valid, those who does that, limits their own understanding to some obvious flaws and miss the possible insights that the theory can allocate, insights do not present themselves without effort.
Great response, but could you guys try to balance the volume level of the speaker and the ending music? I had to turn my volume up to hear his voice and was subsequently startled by the music.
Another problem is that the academic world will run into problems if it ever admits that two women without any psychology degree could ever be considered an authority on the subject of the human mind. Because if they did, people would start asking questions like, "Why do we need a degree in psychology if two non-psychologists could produce works to be considered as authority in psychology itself?"
This is why I do not rely on tests, but rather studying each function and how they can manifest in each position to accurately determine what type I am.
I(Introvert): Because you prefer to analyze and define yourself based on your own internal processing as opposed to letting something external do that for you. N(Intuitive): Because a more Sensing person would not have wrote "This is why I do not rely on tests" but something more on the line of "I wouldn't rely on this test, because...." or "I would be skeptical about relying on tests, because..." T(Thinking): Because you coldly assessed the topic in the most logical way you could determine with the facts you had available, rather than letting your feelings cloud your judgment. J(Judging): It took me some time to figure out this last one. The second part of your message is the human way of saying: "I have insufficient information to do the necessary calculations." While an INTP would thrive figuring out the likelihood of all the possible explanations based on the available information(Perceiving quality), an INTJ would simply determine that they need more information in order to "accurately determine" which option is most likely(Judging quality).
I think the test will always fail because it has no predictive capability and its literally based on a people's interpretation of themselves. Yes, if you answer "I don't feel confortable at a party" you may be a introverted, but perhaps that person doesn't know just how many times they go to a party or how much they really talk with others.
It appears that the real criticism is about the accuracy of the test, rather than the validity of the concept. It would be a mistake to confuse accuracy with the validity of the functions. Another consideration is that clinical psychology is more geared toward mental illness than personality types.
@@alexcuadron8500 then whats the point in classify in 16 groups if cognitive functions is what matters? for me it sounds like horoscope stuff like if you dont fit in your zodiacal sign you have to check tour rising sign or your moon sign. there is always an excuse to keep you interested.
@@cristhynoheliaanyaipomaart9864 it isn't a exact science, but isn't as Random as the horoscope. The mbti is based on statistics and social analysis. The horoscope in just the stars... And still there are plenty of people who believe in it. The cognitive functions are part of the 16 groups. But they help you to understand how do the brain thinks. And most times they are right. Of course there will be mistakes, but most of times, people would fit within those categories.
Myers Briggs is a neat theory, but the cognitive functions (which it is based upon) hold no neurological foundations. People who take the cognitive function test rarely get results that match up to exactly one personality type. Don't get me wrong though, this is the most accurate personality test out there. My main concern is that the Myers Briggs community seems to base their entire identity on their personality type, when the order of their eight functions probably aren't even the same. Even if there is a perfect match, the brain is far too complex for the cognitive functions to hold a significant basis in reality. The idea that these personality types and cognitive functions are lifelong is ridiculous as well. We are all different, with each person's input/output processing and perspective being unique. The only good thing about the Myers Briggs theory is how it can bring like-minded individuals together. Just my two cents...
Alyssa Surette your argument was valid at first reading, even about yhe MBTI community, in honest sense. Then it became evident that you are displaying, like all others, a "don't box me in" fallacy. Look, we know dude. We just love to use it for the consistent patterns we obviously display. By that same logic, calling yourself "smart" "analytical" captivating (basic descriptions about ourselves) are "demeaning" and "overly specific as well, and thus we should not use anything to describe ourselves. the cognitive brain is FAR too complex to be fully typed, but typing canhold insight to finding out more and more. Can though.
§öphişt as I said before, Myers Briggs is the most most accurate personality type out there. It's also helpful for finding a community of like-minded people. That being said, many people are confused of who they are as a person and look for these answers in outside sources. This is why I believe Myers Briggs is so popular. I'm all for self discovery and even self labeling, to an extent. As long as you don't consider a label to be a big part of your identity then there isn't a problem. Most of the people on the personality forums seem to have that extreme mentality though, which is bad.
Alyssa Surette well that is why I said "in an honest sense". Yes, I guess because the information is so spot on that they become overly attached to it and rely on its validity as its only source. There are good reasons to find this reliable, but it is NEVER the answer just narrow something down that much to the "only way". Now when it comes to anything else. that is just the motive of it. I wouldn't base the damn community on the validity of ANY theory (not saying that that is what you are ONLY getting out, I am just making that clear). When one sees ones pattern about themselves and their behaviors, and unlock something new out of that knowledge, it leaves them to more wonders and wonders they have about themselves which people tend to do *self* studies on these matters as it hits. The Myers-Briggs then becomes their tool to use as foundation or reference. Even if people do not do use the Myers-Briggs, people are generally still looking for self-actualization in one way or another. This is even backed up by Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of needs, which is scientifically accepted (if you care, though). Just simple standing there and taking ignorance as bliss, for the fear of too much information will "box you in" and make you seem "not as unique as you are by not knowing thyself", isn't very helpful or productive to a natural process that anti-briggers seem to promote. I honestly feel this is just "artist concern", as of feeling that these descriptions will "muddy" the beauty that is not explained. Thus, we should not explain it. I sense a strong Fi (authenticity) in this argument, as with similar ones on this matter as to why they are rather distrustful of the system. Science can muddy the water of a beautiful art of the abstract essence of nihil. Ignorance is bliss. Not saying that you are an Fi dominant, or if you know what it means to begin with (it's basically what "feels right" to me, or "what is authentic to me and what I am viewing". It is a completely artistic-oriented perception, ungrounded by logic. That doesn't mean they aren't logical, but they rather hate being "impersonal". However, you show a strong Fi, though I may not know.
You need to delve deeper. The MBTI theorizes that each type develops a set of functions at different intervals throughout their lifetime. It also accounts for abnormalities that create unhealthy personalities, such as dom/tert loops, inferior grips, and the desire to use shadow functions too frequently. Further, online quizzes can't truly hammer out your function set. It's been my experience that at this time, to be properly typed, you need an actual human being to analyze you.
U need to do more research, your main issue is with dumb ppl using mbti incorrectly, tho the tool that is MBTi is very very useful for your personal identity, and yes functions are lifelong, they brain is not too complex, it simply isn’t, it has a set patter of how it works if it didn’t there would be no brain, it’s an amazing system of ordering info so there is bound to be a pattern with them and yes there are so many variables and yes no one will know the true YOU unless you let them (and even then maybe not) but brains and how they work can be categorized and you CAN become a better YOU but YOU will never change ya feel? Just please do more research you probably have Fi in ur stack somewhere if your feeling this way cuz u honestly haven’t been diagnosed properly, also I have mean no harm with this comment I just wanna point out MBTI is very accurate and You need to be diagnosed properly and that u are correct in the fact that ppl may be extreme in Using MBTI tho MBTI is not to blame, ☺️
While they do have some good content, they have an overall credibility problem. They want to explain complex matters in many fields to people without preconceptions. While that's admirable, it's also harder than the investors thought. And for one thing, it requires journalists who can understand these matters themselves. Unsurprisingly, those aren't cheap.
Fair point. I have only watched about 3 or 4 Vox vids and two of them impressed me. Taught me things I didn't know about. the other 2 I watched...... well, they were dreadful and biased as hell.
Basically : Openness correlates with S/N , Consciousness correlates with J/P . E/I is self-explanatory , Agreeableness correlates with T/F , Neuroticism is not in MBTI ...
Anyone who doesn't laugh at this is taking life too seriously. Admittedly, I'm famous for this, but the tone is clearly humor... The George Clooney voice is great!
Psychologists don't use it rather than that they don't trust it is ok for me, but how they came up with 16 personality types that necessarily go with 8 functions in a specific order?! I don't want to sound arrogant but this aa oversimplistic way to apply Jungs functions, isn't it?
Whoever thinks it's not legit is dumb honestly. I literally learned so much about myself that I didn't even really know through the Myers-Briggs test and it's 100% spot on about everyone who takes it. *EDIT:* Through my experience, the test actually really isn't that accurate for some people. My mom and my sister are both INFPs like me according to the test, but they're so close-minded and horrible and one of the defining traits of an INFP is open-minded-ness and general kindness. Idk, I guess it just depends on the person as to how accurate it is.
bulldog521521 If you think INFPs are defacto open minded you are not really grasping how this works. All introverts with a "P" type lead with an introverted judging function and these are very personal and likely to make the person, at least initially, closed minded. The introverted feeling INFPs lead with is a massive filter that weeds out everything that does not conform to their inner values. For example, they're very unlikely to accept any statement from someone they dislike or deeply disagree with. If an INFP hates Trump they will reject EVERYTHING he says even if a single statement is true. Conversely "judgemental" IXXJs would be a lot more likely to conceded points from people they really dislike.
Jordan Kyte But then why does every general description of the INFP say that they're typically very open-minded? It does make sense that they would be close-minded when it comes to their core values, but that just makes it confusing as to why they're portrayed as so open-minded. I've always straddled the line between P and J, so maybe that's why I'm so open-minded.
bulldog521521 That's were it gets tricky. They do have open mindness that comes from the Ne. If something passes their Fi filter they will certainly consider all angles. In this case the "lack" of open mindness comes from ethics judgments, not intellectual ones, if something conflicts with their ethics or feelings it's not allowed past the "door". Anything else can be worked with. INTPs on the other hand act this way with their logical judgements. If something seems too out there intellectually to fit what they see as logical truth, it's not even considered. This is why they generally are so closed to esoteric things or theories that are not in line with their inner truth. Once it clears the filter it will be considered through so many angles it makes your head spin. This is where these types actually ARE open minded. INFJs, INTJs... we're a lot more likely to initially listen to an idea. It immediately clears the first filter because it's not a judgment function. We often reject it quickly because Ni is a build up function and as such it's previous work seems to apply to most every new input we get. We trust our No tremendously so we often tend to be very prone to make snap judgments. We are often right, but it is this snap judgment that makes us seem, well more judgmental. However you must be assured that we will have considered it, whatever it was, which doesn't happen with those who lead with Feeling or Thinking functions. In the end my original point tried to point out that the Myers Briggs letters are useful for a general idea and easy categorization, however knowing the functions that are the backbone and how they operate is most important.
Jordan Kyte Ah, interesting. I guess I must be equal parts perceiving and judging then (I'm not really familiar with the actual functions that make these categories) because not only do I encourage new ideas/viewpoints, but I actually explore them at great lengths as well. Maybe I just have very few core values or something. The only thing I'm intolerant of is close-minded people. People who immediately dismiss everything that doesn't line up exactly with their views aggravate me to no end, but other than that, I can get along with pretty anyone regardless of how far-fetched their views are or even if they're completely opposite of mine.
You realize in your first post, you actually appear judgmental and stubborn and not at all open minded? Even your response to Jordan Kyte is defensive and not warm to the new information. I will say, you are at least considering it but you also give this judgment laden response, " but I actually explore them at great lengths as well" saying your sister and mother do not. You have given no examples or anything but your personal (Fi) opinion. (P and J do not "interchange" btw) This is also value driven, "People who immediately dismiss everything that doesn't line up exactly with their views aggravate me to no end." It is based in emotion. Have you considered the possibility your family members have a different value?
The Myers Briggs is inaccurate because there is no middleground for anything. You are either an introvert or an extrovert. Say I got 51% extrovert and 49% introvert but the test doesn't care, I am viewed as a full extrovert and the results say i'm fully social. Also the questions you answer only make you a little bit more of the one side or the other. If I say that i need a break after talking to other people, and to every other question I answer the extroverted option, the test doesn't take into account that I can't talk to people for long, meaning if I were to use this test to determine the rype of education I should get it would most likely not work for me. Also you made an argument that the study vox used was old, but you can test this by yourself. I took the test after a month and I got a completely different result than last time. The test just doesn't take some variables into account that would make it a viable test for other things than just entertainment.
Just for the sake of finding common ground, check out this article: blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-difference-between-extraversion-and-extroversion/
It's odd that the compilers of the dictionaries seem to have missed, or confused, the Latin root of the words Extra and Intro. I disagree with the writer that it's "...an unnecessary rift!" but a fortunate accident. Using "Extra" and "Extro" for scientific and general usage thus avoiding the issue of language drift. Just look at the problems science has with the term "Theory" - which affectively has two different meanings; the scientific one and common usage.
Vox's argument is not "Whatever the majority believes is true," but "Whatever the scientific/academic/professional community has consensus on is most probable."
@@Coneman3 It's not about opinions. I don't know all typology systems, MBTI however could never prove that they are right to start with. I mean if I postulate a theory, I'm the one who has to prove it and not others have to debunk it. But since people love little drawers to put themselves and others into and due to the Barnum effect believe what they read about "their" type, scientists took their time to examine MBTI and could prove that it's not accurate. The only ones who claim MBTI to be right are the ones who make money out of it. I mean I get that it's funny with all the sketches and memes but instead of spending time learning a flawed system people should spend time and learn about real psychology - the big 5 for example, if you are interested in personality.
@@7reever Definition of a theory... A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts. ... A theory not only explains known facts; it also allows scientists to make predictions of what they should observe if a theory is true. Scientific theories are testable. Personality is not like physics. We can't prove someone is more caring or logical than another person for absolutely certain, but this does not mean the theory has no validity.
this also problem in science too. if does not fit the paradigm it is rejected. it kind funny how atheist try to argue science is objective when scientist are not and only support theories that support there world view. the science on climate change is the clearest example.
+Miles Jackson Although observations are objective, an observation or fact will never be able to prove anything else than its own reliableness in its own specific context. A theory is mere speculation based on observations and facts, and has the reliableness a bunch of facts hurdled together in the minds of a bunch of scientists in relative agreement.
If MBTI isn't meaningless, then why, despite being tested as an INTP (TiNe), do I dislike politeness/formality because it's inefficient and betraying the truth (Te trait)?
"When faced with two choices, simply toss a coin. It works not because it settles the question for you, but because in that brief moment when the coin is in the air, you suddently know what you are hoping for." - Unknown
Nice!
Has that ever actually been true? Rather, don't most, upon flipping the coin and seeing the result, just find that they're unsatisfied with its presentation and opt to remain undecided?
Thank you, ive studied MBTI and cognitive functions and quite enjoy what it taught me about myself. Vox's video seemed to be glossing over the study completely.
I don't think MBTI is an all knowing science, but I see it as a tool that can help lead to personal development.
SeaOdeEEE Unity it is a 10 minute video. Of course it abbreviates or as you say "glosses." It is a summary piece, duh.
Vox is liberal shithole
@@nightprowler6336 lol, here we call "liberals" to libertarians, so I was like wtf!?
I think the only real flaw in the test is that it's almost impossible to be honest with yourself. I don't even mean people purposefully lie just that they have a bias view or just aren't seeing their personality objectively. For example the test asks a lot about whether or not you area organized person and if you like to plan things out, many people probably think they are organized and will only think about instances that support that thought about themselves even if they have every intention of trying to answer honestly. I typically get INTP when I take the test and I think it suits me quite well but sometimes I do question that result and take the test again and get ENTP I try to answer honestly and think about every question carefully but it still happens.
However this is not meant to "debunk" the test I actually think it in itself is very useful an well made it's just the people taking it that are the problem really nothing against them but that's just how it works.
Note also that the Big Five measures _traits_.
The MBTI measures _Type_.
Type is not just a collection of traits.
Beautifully put, Vicki.
why isnt anyone talking about functions? it always sounds like ppl can only be "feelers" or "thinkers" but thats not the case with functions
it sounds like horoscope for me. when you dont fit in your astrological sign then someone tell you you should check your rising sign or your moon sign or always tell you some excuse but none personallity test is 100%accurate because nobody can be classified in only 4 words or in an specific type. people just have the need to feel special and fitting in a type make they feel happy.
cristhy nohelia anyaipoma artica I understand, but this isn’t a 1-1 comparison, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of it. The four letters have little value. You need to fully understand the system to refute it. It’s not even that hard either. I share your critical attitude though.
@@Prometheus7272 I dont think some people have just few functions. some people take it like a zodiacal sign. few people take the test wrong also so its hard to know which type or which functions you exactly because everybody reacts to situation depending on their mood, education,beliefs etc.
I’m beginning to think its all a scam. There is no mathematical or scientific basis for it. No one can seem to be on the same page on the cognitive functions.
@@rebekatalebi8046 studying the mind is hard since our perspectives of our and other's mind is subjective, it's only natural for people to view cognitive functions different. After all this is only a guide
I feel that cognitive function is a really hard subject and Jung made a quantum leap on it. So, the model he inspired was very structured and simple yet complex, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is some error here and there about the definition, grouping, naming, or the amount of functions, or other contributing factors. And now people who are interested have to deal with the mess of testing the right model
MBTI result will be meaningless if it only used to justify your certain behavior.
-INTP
One of the problems with the MBTI tests is that they are largely self assessments. Can you really trust someone to objectively evaluate their own personality? I think the results of these tests say more about the personality type someone sees as most desirable and wishes they were, than objectively measuring which type best describes them. I don't know if you can write questions that will "trick" the person into revealing their personality type without them being aware of what the test's author is attempting to discern.
Jess Stuart good point
That's one of the reason I decided to study more about it and choose my own combination of letters depending on what fits better to my personality. I think its way better and honest. When I do tests I always get frustrated over if the answer its really what I am (or do) and what I want to be (or want to do).
so you're saying the theory works, but evaluation is flawed, unless it's personal
Max Rosario I'm saying, I find test tedious. My answer can change depending on my mood, age, experiences etc. Its even worse when you have to choose a ''intensity'' of something.
So, no one know ME, better than I do. It's not that a chose the letters I wanted, I read about what they mean and examples. I found my personality type and I totally agree. Unlike tests where if at certain moment I feel to answer something different my result will be different.
Jess Stuart There is no such thing as "MBTI tests". MBTI is the OFFICIAL TEST.
Any other Myers-Briggs/ Kiersey like test are simply copies of the original MBTI.
In all cases though the test results should be taken with a grain of salt unless they're administered by a certified practitioner who takes cognitive functions into account. All the PerC fanboys and fangirls who take dozens of tests, mistype progressively worse, and "change" types twice a year should do more research and self discovery and less improvised testing which just becomes worse and worse as you become more adept to manipulate your results. All they accomplish is to feed the misconception that Jungian typology is horoscope like and to make matters worse they get none of the benefits they should be getting.
Thanks, guys.
Thank you!
i took the test on every possible site i could find with completely different questions and i got INFP every time so..
bugbug yeah, i think a lot of us infp’s do that
@@RUclipsusee365 ya me too
INFJ
Pd: I Love INFP's
Meh same here, we cannot even lie to ourselves despite wishing for a different result
I have found that people who say that MBTI is useless do not know what it is about. It is a thought process-based tool first and foremost. All resulting behaviors are secondary.
Want to know about emotional responses? Study temperaments.Want to know about base motivations? Study enneagram.Want a dynamic system about life paths? Study Ten Terrains.Want a comprehensive analysis of your default personas? Study the Arno Profile System.Want to prove that you are superior to others? I cannot help you there.
Fuck, why not throw it all out and just look into your star signs and life path and use tarot to predict your future?
Cortex
Why not actually devote some time into the topic with an intention of understanding rather than with blatant preconceived notions?
zain
For real 👏🏻
Tom Wilson
infp island "Ourselves" is the operative word in your post. The MBTI provides a reliable epistemological structure for personal development, especially when employed in conjunction with the Keirsey Temperament construct.
The MBTI and Keirsey are complimentary models, the MBTI being a model of differentiation and the Keirsey is a model of integration. This is to say, MBTI takes the functions apart to differentiate their role in creating the personal reality while Keirsey demonstrates how the functions in operation tend to affect our personal unconscious method of acquiring and manipulating data to create information and create the gestalt of our personal realty.
In contrast, the Big 5 model seems to have become a format for acquiring the personality profile preferred by corporate HR, whose primary role is to ensure a compliant and docile work force for the CEO.
In choosing between the MBTI/Keirsey Temperaments and The Big 5, the choice comes down to a decision to Be All You Can Be or to be Dilbert. estp.
Tom Wilson beautifully said, estp. -INTP
INFJ here. I don't wanna be Dilbert, and I wouldn't want anyone working for me to be Dilbert either. You make it very clear why people in general like MBTI and big corps like the Big 5.
MBTI is either free or cheap... that's why "experts" don't like it. You don't have to pay $100/hr or pay for a prescription. MBTI is a guide, a way of providing some insight towards oneself.
I took the test and read about my type... and yes, it did help. For once in my life, I felt understood.
So, it helped because you "felt understood"? How has that help translated into action? You "felt understood" because all results pepper the Barnum effect throughout in order to psychologically trick you into feeling understood. Why? They have a bridge to sell you.
@@MechanicalMooCow At first, that's what I thought. However, I read through all of the other types and they sound nothing like me. From what I understand, it's kind of like a guide... something that gives you a strategy for life.
You've struck the nail on it's head Michael. Props to your research team.
If anyone had doubts about the legitimacy of MBTI, I suggest they glance over Jungian functions.
It's truly unfortunate that a system that's helped so many people rediscover themselves, gets a bad rep in 2016.
I'm not even that passionate about the MBTI subject, but after the video by Vox had me waste several minutes of my life with their fallacies (not to mention questionable claims, as you have exposed), I felt inclined to waste some more time writing a point-by-point rundown on their stupidity. Thankfully, you have provided just that, and also a much better use of my time with your video. My mind is at peace again. :)
I have been using MBTI for decades in work as well as personally and it's been very helpful indeed. However, one big caveat seems to involve accuracy across cultures, e.g., in some cultures almost everyone tests out to be the same type. I assume this distortion was a function of questions asked, nuanced wording and translation, and a culture's bias toward group-think and group behaviour (much of Asia). However new versions of the test may have solved these issues, I don't know.
It's really helpful.
My relationship with my parents began better than it was before.
It's a useful tool that you need to know how to use if you want it to work
Mbti is fun. And I enjoy it very much. Just like I occasionally enjoy horoscopes even though I'm a scientist :) But there is little scientific grounding for mbti. Clinical psychologists do use personality tests. They use the big 5. Research psychologists almost exclusively use the big 5. You can't publish a paper in a peer review journal using mbti measurements as your source of data. Workplace success, performance, etc. have been found to correlate very well with certain big 5 measures. But not with mbti measures. Mbti functions are just a philosophical construct that is the consequence of faulty logic. They have no meaning whatsoever. Are not related to what the questions in the test are designed to measure. People are encouraged to "explore" the types and decide which one they belong to rather than just relying on the test score. Which is obscene for a psychological test. Imagine if people were encouraged to "explore" the IQ scale for example and decide where they fit, regardless of their actual iq score. MBTI fails on every possible criterion for a good test. It is furthermore based on false dichotomies. It takes data that is distributed on a curve with most people falling around the middle, and rounds it to a 0-1 integer. It is not derived from a modern theory of personality or a thorough search of personality concepts or anything related to brain anatomynor physiology. It is based on an outdated theory of personality from a hundred years ago. I like jung very much and I enjoy reading his work. But I would highly reccomend that people read it as some kind of philosophical or literary work. It is not sience.
iam 100% agree with you
What your thoughts on the idea of using MBTI as a supplementary tool to the big five?
To me, there is credence in the MBTI system as it provides insight into thinking and tendency preferences. It is a guide, not a bible into the human grey matter.
Do you think cognitive functions are false? Empirically, I believe they are completely real even though they have not been associated with parts of the brain scientifically. Doesn't mean that won't happen in the future though. I mean mbti is literally a tool to tell you which cognitive functions you use, and in what order.
I have not taken any other personality test which impressed me more than MBTI. I get that it’s far from perfect, but I don’t believe calling it “totally meaningless” is correct either. It just categorizes people into 16 personality types and definitely doesn’t describe your personality completely. You cannot find two people who are completely identical personality wise.
Yeah, but the point is that this 16 types don't mean anything. You could just aa well categorise people into "a type" and "b type"
Well researched video, thanks for posting it.
It would be nice if the MBTI/Functions community could in fact produce objective, consistent results.
You ask any two practitioners "what type is this person?" and you always get different opinions.
The scientific community loves to point this out. Would be nice to solve that someday.
Anyway, love the work you do in Functions.
Thanks!
+DaveSuperPowers It's time to make more videos
You know what else would be nice, Dave?
Get your fucking shit together and knock out some more videos, is what >_>
(xoxox)
KRS channel, mind conditioning?
If you need to solve a system not giving you the accurate, expected results, then the system is flawed.
I have found MTBI to be a very reliable and helpful tool in understanding interpersonal dynamics between my friends, family and myself. It takes some reading and study to understand why each personality type is described as such, though, and how where each person falls on the four spectrums helps to define the whole personality. When I first learned about it, I was quick to dismiss it as another internet personality test until i learned of it's rigorous scientific origins.
I agree that the Vox video's claims were a quite small pot of evidence vs the heaps of study and evidence gathered that is consistently applied to the MTBI to make it more accurate. This one is worth the time to learn about, it's study has enriched my life.
The Myers Briggs test has its place and I found it to be very useful. As a matter of fact it does help us look at ourselves objectively. It's a good tool for self understanding but it was never intended to be a box that you stick yourself into. Knowing my own personality type has helped me hope with life better and find ways to handle things that fit my personality in my way of doing things.
useful??
I like the tone of the narrator now!
Yea lol
Hey i like Synthwave too, what are you and where are u from?
INTJ. Nailed me. Like most INTJ’s I thought I was mentally ill for years. The test even nails the way people *react* to me.
Funny. Upon insistence of my immature insecure narcissistic borderline now ex-GF I met with her therapist.
I had not done MBTI before that and I have worked as an analyst, in media, legal field and governance, as CEO and I speak several languages, that should tell something.
The therapist suggested I turn off my analytical approach and let "feelings and emotions" in.
What a bunch of crap to hear for an INTJ!
I've often wanted to write an article about this entitled 'The Baby in the Bathwater'. (If anyone wants to steal that idea and write it instead, go ahead.)
I have my own issues with the Big Five system, and I'm not alone, as it has more recently been found to lack cross-cultural validity, with its measurements only working for major industrialised nations. I also strongly dislike that it appears to favour extroversion, and view introversion in a negative light, and I'm not sure neuroticism should even be a scale, especially when it's plainly obvious which questions will amp up the neuroticism score.
That said, I would never want to get rid of the Big Five test. Many of these tests ask essentially the same questions and use the same sliding scales, so I'd like to make one big test that spits out scores in multiple formats. These tests clearly measure different things, so why not let them compliment each other?
So scientists say it's not a valid theory, because not much official research has been done on it. But then they decide not to do research on it, because it's not a valid theory? What?
If people would just take the casual, unofficial research done into MBTI by armchair psychologists a tad more seriously, then maybe we'd be making a lot more advancements in common knowledge of psychology and science as a whole. Hmm.
i got an INFJ
a selfless sensitive thinker which kinda got me to know more about myself, sometime i have doubt on the MBTI test though. shouldn't really count on the test too much also...well yet, because over time were still trying to figure out the way how a human brain functions over its emotions and shit. its actually pretty amazing how everyone is going through alot of research over time.
Damn People need to take cognitive functions into account, it's ridiculous to try to undermine the credibility of a theory when you don't know shit about it.
The MBTI actually needs an additional layer of testing. You can actually type people with less than 10 questions in my experience. However really sorting out high performing (say intj) from other intj needs a lot more testing.
Number Eight agreed, apparently im an intj, i dont disagree either. everything they say perfectly describes me but i am the most laziest person on earth. so i guess its more so about the person. =| potato please?
Vox also claims that the MBTI is meaningless because some people misuse it. Which is also a fallacy.
If mbti is meaningless I wonder how I'm able to guess a majortiy of people their type right that I meet (and that indeed know their type). I must have psychic abilities!
You can guess all you want, it dorsn't mean anything
You just guess it, doesn't mean your judgement is correct. Many people get it wrong when they guess someone's type especially based on "vibes" which is just false repeated stereotype.
I can already tell you're an INFJ.
If you disagree you're wrong, and mistyped. I know because I'm super smart and this 'science' is very reliable.
@@MechanicalMooCow Entp ?
Luan - Lion of Europe
Probably:)
The big problem I have is the idea that it really seems to be built on this idea there are only 16 types which are discrete, when as has been said, the majority of psychology research suggests that personality traits -- however you measure them -- are a continuous gradiation. Someone who scores 48 on an "extroversion" scale and someone who scores 52, where 50 is your cutoff between introverted and extroverted _are not going to be all that different_ on this personality dimension, yet MBTI type theory suggests there is a dramatic difference, esp. with Jung's functions theory which suggests they think quite different. All because they just fall on two sides of an arbitrary cutoff. But that is nonsense, as far as can be told with psychology. Our human brains are continuously variable in their wiring, apportionment of neurons between regions, and other factors. It doesn't make any sense for them to display such sharp boundaries just looking at basic biology and neuroscience. I'd think if there were discrete types, it would have popped up in other psychological research under different guises, from people who _didn't_ believe in the MBTI, and that itself would have probably led researchers to take MBTI much more seriously. (By the way, both Vox and CelebrityTypes, what you would be really wanting to look at is neither clinical psychologists nor employers, but rather research psychologists in personality psychology. That is the _exact_ field which covers this issue.)
MBTI would do best to ditch the type thing and just report 4 graduated scores, one on each scale.
I would be more interested in seeing how the MBTI corporation supposedly increased the reliability with giving the dichotomized type. Maybe they just got the testing procedure and materials accurate enough to minimize the score fluctuations between retakes of the tests, not that somehow there's been a more clear discovery of a discreteness phenomenon that I think would have showed up in other research.
The test is not meaningless, just rather crude in its picturing of human personality differences. It's like trying to draw pictures with only a 16-color palette ala ancient Microsoft Windows. (Or perhaps an 8-color one where (r,g,b) has values 0 or 1 only for each element, 0 being black and 1 being maximum brightness of that color channel. And then try to draw a realistic picture with that. It's not totally worthless, but it is very, very restricted, resulting in a probably very abstract, impressionistic drawing, not in a rich photo-realistic one.) Crude pictures are not useless either, but they can be misleading if one is not aware of their crudeness or their pitfalls, and the last thing we want is yet another form of stereotyping, especially when it comes to hiring decisions.
I'm in a rush so didn't see the start of your comment but the last bit caught my eye. Mainly because you touch on a specific metaphor I keep in mind regarding mbti. That is the thing, it is NOT 16 colours, it is every shade of blue, every shade of grey, every shade of purple etc the point mbti makes is that if you look at a colour, generally speaking, you can identify it. Does the lightest red look the same as the darkest? or a red heavy in blue look the same as one heavy in orange? Nope, but when you see them both, will you say "that is red", because it falls under that umbrella and is identifiable as such. What you're thinking of is the 16 stereotypes, but those stereotypes are examples of the types in their healthiest and most mature states, unfortunately probably the majority of human beings are not fully mature or healthy, which is where we get all our varying shades of red. These differences and imbalances are all discussed in the theory, they can make people of the same type develop very differently. Type simply describes the basis, what is built upon it is another thing altogether, a person who was abused throughout their childhood is hardly going to be the same as one who wasn't, even if they share the same type basis. As an example people who have experienced difficult or traumatic experiences may be much more involved in their inferior function, to the point they could mistake it for their dominant, this person will not look the same as either their type or the type they would be if their functions were switched upside down, because their development has been interrupted and mangled by their life experiences. And this is the case for everyone, hence everyone really is an individual, a very distinct shade of red, but they are red none the less.(or whatever their identifiable colour/type may be).
So you are suggesting to use the type categories like the names we give colors on the color spectrum, a qualitative description but not a quantitative one? That idea is good, but the trouble is, there are still some problems with that and MBTI theory. The problem is that the MBTI theory does not say that the types shade into each other, it insists on them being binary and mutually incompatible. Furthermore it suggests they represent objectively distinct constructs, not simply conventional/qualitative appellations to what is in reality a continuous construct. The second problem is that being "in the middle" is not exceptional; rather, it is the norm: the traits are normally, not bimodally, distributed meaning that the population clusters around the middle and extreme levels are unusual. Furthermore, when we look at a color spectrum running from, say, red to blue, the middle is not something we would call either red or blue, but rather a third color, purple. If anything, the MBTI should have at least three options on each axis, not two. That would give 81 types, not 16. The middle is so common that to _not_ give it its own type category would seem rather lacking.
Thanks for this video, you did really overwhelmingly good work here!
Thaaank you for this video.
Strange how a company selling psychoanalysis services is defending the Myers-Briggs test...
I took an MBTI test a few months ago. Questions were things like "I enjoy going to parties," etc. I get the impression that while this test does accurately measure peoples' personalities at that moment, a person's type is not fixed. For example, if I deliberately went out every day to be social and partied a lot, would I not score higher on Extraversion? This is not even to bring up the problems with self assessment. The idea that you can take a 30 minute test and accurately place people within one of 16 personality types (which are fixed from childhood on) is ludicrous to me.
The key concept is that each part is a spectrum; everyone must extrovert and introvert, everyone uses sensing and intuition, thinking and feeling, perceiving and judging. Each assigned letter denotes a preference, often with a degree for how much. Many of the words don't quite mean what you think they might at first glance.
I have found that studying the theory behind the tests and learning about the research that has gone into refining it very enriching. The MTBI website describes how each of the letters relate to one another and help form the larger personality.
I relate the concept that the personality types generally don't change to how humans are creatures of habit. We find a way we prefer to do things, that works, and tend to stick to it. However, over time we do change and grow. If anything, the mental functions described by MTBI start with stronger preferences in one direction or another, and generally become more balanced as people stop leaning so heavily on one vs another. For instance, I was very heavily in the Thinking side of the decision making spectrum growing up. I often mismanaged my feelings, easily angered or consumed by fear, etc. Only now in my late twenties is the other side, Feeling, becoming more mature and properly handled. Consequentially, that fits very accurately with the description of my type ISTP, where Thinking is my primary mental function, and Feeling is my weakest.
STEM Tutor
The difference between “liking” or enjoying parties is different from the act of regularly going- you can attend every party in a 10 km radius and still not *like* going. It seems people misinterpret the questions quite often, and that adds to the confusion.
It's probably more accurate for honest people.
Even if you are honest it doesn't give you the results and it's just a test?
I think the test is helpful in self discovery and personal gain for being self aware and grants a level of self confidence and reassurance in your personal overarching strengths and weaknesses. I believe once organizations start to classify people this way and place them in boxes, we as a society will be in big trouble... the George Orwell Big Brother type trouble where you can be discriminated against and not hired or not accepted if you become required to tell schools, organizations, and businesses what you are. If this becomes a standard procedure and required like drug screening tests or required on resumes, it could mean we are slowly creeping towards a totalitarian or dictatorship style leadership. This test should be no more important than a buzzfeed personality test, nothing more.
I've already come to the conclusion the MBTI test is flawed (the 16 category makes some sense but it's still very vague and pidgeon holing people) since the questions are easy to interpret and anyone wanting to be seen a certain way will mold the answers to their ideal.
Is not the flaw then in the dishonesty of the individual?
The narrator sounds like George Clooney.
Fortunate to work with him.
CelebrityTypes Jaja Jaja Jaja
Is the 50% difference result quoted at 3:30 over a single dimension or the whole type quadruple?
If the latter is the case, this is pretty close to what you would expect with the cosistency numbers of 80-90% on each dimension shown at 4:32.
Maybe those prestigious psychologists undermine MBTI Theory because they must do so,otherwise their business could be thwarted.In other words,if they propose to promote this kind of tool,many people will regain their inner self and will have less problems.Less problems=Less money towards "Psychology Industry".
And yes! in a vast percentage psychologists are businessmen.We could think of Eisenberg for instance who was psychiatric and confessed to have invented ADHD in order to take benefit.Never believe in those who make a constant and negative judge towards something because they are probably conceiling their real thoughts for convenience.
I believe in MBTI,I have used it for a year and I have realised so many things...!
The Myers Briggs is a great MODEL but is just a model not an end all be all.
I am always in the mid-sixties on openess, in the mid-twenties on concientousnessness, in the mid-thirties in extroversion, in the mid-nineties in agreeableness, and in the mid-nineties in neuroticism.
Despite my feminine nature, I am a man. I do not, however, fit into the traditional ideas surrounding masculinity.
In my experience, I don’t fit the INFP model described, though INFP and ENFP descriptions are still closer to my experience than other types, but I find the descriptions online a bit overly positive. I don’t see meaning in everything, nor do I look at the world with childlike wonder. I am a nihilist and an agnostic atheist trying to move out of the bible belt. Likely due to my life experiences, I’m more of a friendly cynic than an idealist.
Micheal Pierce, do you think that by not including Neurotism, the MBTI is obsolete...even if iit isn’t “meaningless” as Vox said?
Have you watched c s Joseph on RUclips hé talks a lot about négative things of each type
What is the central authority on MBTI, and what is their contact information? Thank you.
this video was satisfying and thorough
I get different results: INFJ, INFP, and INTJ. But it's wrong to say that it's "pointless." I always find the questions of different tests to be questionable and situational.
me too Ive got INFP, ENFP and soemthing else haha i dont remember but I cant be classified in 4 letters.
Why is there a blue dot in the minute 6:48 ? and why does it disappear quickly? was it intentional?
The marketing of the concept regulated by different companies on the internet has its own management to capture the attention of potential customers. Most tests have their own form of "superficial attraction", which is not something to be despised, after all, it's only a fact how the marketing process works and how companies even lead to growth. The serious scrutiny one should ask for himself is what do I do with the information a test can assign? Because it is only in the act of the individual who performs the test that can actually determine how reliable information about one's "personality" is or how valid it is.If you only do a test and do not use the information to something, you only get the pleasure of identifying something that gives it a fixed value of a certain truth.Which ultimately has no relevance at all, depending on how you act.
The exaggerated skeptical view of the whole personality theory is solely to one or more individuals may characterize shortcomings but not explain, as well as refer to specific scientific studies that have drawn critical conclusions about personality theory
.If you have to say something about their skeptical view, if you base it on the premise that they can not accept the opposite of what they claim to be not true or valid, those who does that, limits their own understanding to some obvious flaws and miss the possible insights that the theory can allocate, insights do not present themselves without effort.
Great response, but could you guys try to balance the volume level of the speaker and the ending music? I had to turn my volume up to hear his voice and was subsequently startled by the music.
Tried and failed. :/
My university doesn’t have too many books on MBTI written recently
Another problem is that the academic world will run into problems if it ever admits that two women without any psychology degree could ever be considered an authority on the subject of the human mind. Because if they did, people would start asking questions like, "Why do we need a degree in psychology if two non-psychologists could produce works to be considered as authority in psychology itself?"
This is why I do not rely on tests, but rather studying each function and how they can manifest in each position to accurately determine what type I am.
You're an INTJ right?
Nizada X what makes you say that?
I(Introvert): Because you prefer to analyze and define yourself based on your own internal processing as opposed to letting something external do that for you.
N(Intuitive): Because a more Sensing person would not have wrote "This is why I do not rely on tests" but something more on the line of "I wouldn't rely on this test, because...." or "I would be skeptical about relying on tests, because..."
T(Thinking): Because you coldly assessed the topic in the most logical way you could determine with the facts you had available, rather than letting your feelings cloud your judgment.
J(Judging): It took me some time to figure out this last one. The second part of your message is the human way of saying: "I have insufficient information to do the necessary calculations." While an INTP would thrive figuring out the likelihood of all the possible explanations based on the available information(Perceiving quality), an INTJ would simply determine that they need more information in order to "accurately determine" which option is most likely(Judging quality).
Nizada X ahahahaha nope, i’m an ISFP. Nice try though bud.
Nizada X jk you are correct. Actually quite impressed on your analysis and guess of my type, based solely on one comment.
What is a Intp, who can speak perfectly well, has a well-build empathy, and is more interested in Art than in math.
An ISFP
@@CueBall5697 lmao
Not an Intp.
I think the test will always fail because it has no predictive capability and its literally based on a people's interpretation of themselves. Yes, if you answer "I don't feel confortable at a party" you may be a introverted, but perhaps that person doesn't know just how many times they go to a party or how much they really talk with others.
I never do comments but.. great job on that.
Even if i may not be read, you deserve that effort, that appreciation.
Bravo.
Look up CS Joseph, look for Season 15 in his playlists, watch, discover your type
i'm sorry but if a clinical psychologist comes along with myer run i love the concept but it's archaic
It appears that the real criticism is about the accuracy of the test, rather than the validity of the concept. It would be a mistake to confuse accuracy with the validity of the functions. Another consideration is that clinical psychology is more geared toward mental illness than personality types.
Functions can be tested and seem to reflect how humans gather data and make decisions based on it. The problem is the self reporting aspect.
I still don't think it is any good. I can't fit into one type more than another. It doesn't work for me :/
This is a problem I have. What if someone scored close to 50% on all four categories? You can't pidgeonhole them on anything. It would be very unfair.
Check the cognitive functions, it may help you.
@@alexcuadron8500 then whats the point in classify in 16 groups if cognitive functions is what matters? for me it sounds like horoscope stuff like if you dont fit in your zodiacal sign you have to check tour rising sign or your moon sign. there is always an excuse to keep you interested.
@@cristhynoheliaanyaipomaart9864 it isn't a exact science, but isn't as Random as the horoscope. The mbti is based on statistics and social analysis. The horoscope in just the stars... And still there are plenty of people who believe in it.
The cognitive functions are part of the 16 groups. But they help you to understand how do the brain thinks. And most times they are right. Of course there will be mistakes, but most of times, people would fit within those categories.
@@alexcuadron8500 people think they fit in those categories its just psychology trick. all the things in each type is very similar.
It's Vox. Just ignore them.
Just my thoughts! You totally destroyed Vox.
Myers Briggs is a neat theory, but the cognitive functions (which it is based upon) hold no neurological foundations. People who take the cognitive function test rarely get results that match up to exactly one personality type. Don't get me wrong though, this is the most accurate personality test out there. My main concern is that the Myers Briggs community seems to base their entire identity on their personality type, when the order of their eight functions probably aren't even the same. Even if there is a perfect match, the brain is far too complex for the cognitive functions to hold a significant basis in reality. The idea that these personality types and cognitive functions are lifelong is ridiculous as well. We are all different, with each person's input/output processing and perspective being unique. The only good thing about the Myers Briggs theory is how it can bring like-minded individuals together. Just my two cents...
Alyssa Surette your argument was valid at first reading, even about yhe MBTI community, in honest sense. Then it became evident that you are displaying, like all others, a "don't box me in" fallacy. Look, we know dude. We just love to use it for the consistent patterns we obviously display. By that same logic, calling yourself "smart" "analytical" captivating (basic descriptions about ourselves) are "demeaning" and "overly specific as well, and thus we should not use anything to describe ourselves. the cognitive brain is FAR too complex to be fully typed, but typing canhold insight to finding out more and more. Can though.
§öphişt as I said before, Myers Briggs is the most most accurate personality type out there. It's also helpful for finding a community of like-minded people. That being said, many people are confused of who they are as a person and look for these answers in outside sources. This is why I believe Myers Briggs is so popular. I'm all for self discovery and even self labeling, to an extent. As long as you don't consider a label to be a big part of your identity then there isn't a problem. Most of the people on the personality forums seem to have that extreme mentality though, which is bad.
Alyssa Surette well that is why I said "in an honest sense". Yes, I guess because the information is so spot on that they become overly attached to it and rely on its validity as its only source. There are good reasons to find this reliable, but it is NEVER the answer just narrow something down that much to the "only way".
Now when it comes to anything else. that is just the motive of it. I wouldn't base the damn community on the validity of ANY theory (not saying that that is what you are ONLY getting out, I am just making that clear). When one sees ones pattern about themselves and their behaviors, and unlock something new out of that knowledge, it leaves them to more wonders and wonders they have about themselves which people tend to do *self* studies on these matters as it hits. The Myers-Briggs then becomes their tool to use as foundation or reference. Even if people do not do use the Myers-Briggs, people are generally still looking for self-actualization in one way or another. This is even backed up by Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of needs, which is scientifically accepted (if you care, though). Just simple standing there and taking ignorance as bliss, for the fear of too much information will "box you in" and make you seem "not as unique as you are by not knowing thyself", isn't very helpful or productive to a natural process that anti-briggers seem to promote. I honestly feel this is just "artist concern", as of feeling that these descriptions will "muddy" the beauty that is not explained. Thus, we should not explain it.
I sense a strong Fi (authenticity) in this argument, as with similar ones on this matter as to why they are rather distrustful of the system. Science can muddy the water of a beautiful art of the abstract essence of nihil. Ignorance is bliss.
Not saying that you are an Fi dominant, or if you know what it means to begin with (it's basically what "feels right" to me, or "what is authentic to me and what I am viewing". It is a completely artistic-oriented perception, ungrounded by logic. That doesn't mean they aren't logical, but they rather hate being "impersonal". However, you show a strong Fi, though I may not know.
You need to delve deeper. The MBTI theorizes that each type develops a set of functions at different intervals throughout their lifetime. It also accounts for abnormalities that create unhealthy personalities, such as dom/tert loops, inferior grips, and the desire to use shadow functions too frequently. Further, online quizzes can't truly hammer out your function set. It's been my experience that at this time, to be properly typed, you need an actual human being to analyze you.
U need to do more research, your main issue is with dumb ppl using mbti incorrectly, tho the tool that is MBTi is very very useful for your personal identity, and yes functions are lifelong, they brain is not too complex, it simply isn’t, it has a set patter of how it works if it didn’t there would be no brain, it’s an amazing system of ordering info so there is bound to be a pattern with them and yes there are so many variables and yes no one will know the true YOU unless you let them (and even then maybe not) but brains and how they work can be categorized and you CAN become a better YOU but YOU will never change ya feel? Just please do more research you probably have Fi in ur stack somewhere if your feeling this way cuz u honestly haven’t been diagnosed properly, also I have mean no harm with this comment I just wanna point out MBTI is very accurate and You need to be diagnosed properly and that u are correct in the fact that ppl may be extreme in Using MBTI tho MBTI is not to blame, ☺️
hell yeah! I hate vox for so many reasons. glad to stick it to them.
While they do have some good content, they have an overall credibility problem. They want to explain complex matters in many fields to people without preconceptions. While that's admirable, it's also harder than the investors thought. And for one thing, it requires journalists who can understand these matters themselves. Unsurprisingly, those aren't cheap.
+CelebrityTypes well said. good analysis.
Fair point. I have only watched about 3 or 4 Vox vids and two of them impressed me. Taught me things I didn't know about. the other 2 I watched...... well, they were dreadful and biased as hell.
How do the four metrics correspond to the big five??
Basically : Openness correlates with S/N , Consciousness correlates with J/P . E/I is self-explanatory , Agreeableness correlates with T/F , Neuroticism is not in MBTI ...
Thank you!!
I had attention of the system was made by nf types, of 3 generations. Their recarch. Just a observation.
Anyone who doesn't laugh at this is taking life too seriously. Admittedly, I'm famous for this, but the tone is clearly humor... The George Clooney voice is great!
The narrator sounds a little like the Brain from 'Animaniacs'.
Real MBTI isn’t big five. It’s cognitive functions.
Psychologists don't use it rather than that they don't trust it is ok for me, but how they came up with 16 personality types that necessarily go with 8 functions in a specific order?! I don't want to sound arrogant but this aa oversimplistic way to apply Jungs functions, isn't it?
I'm basically an infj type 2 but yes we are not all the same. The INFJ is just a basic part of me I have a ton of other traits I'm human
Whoever thinks it's not legit is dumb honestly. I literally learned so much about myself that I didn't even really know through the Myers-Briggs test and it's 100% spot on about everyone who takes it.
*EDIT:* Through my experience, the test actually really isn't that accurate for some people. My mom and my sister are both INFPs like me according to the test, but they're so close-minded and horrible and one of the defining traits of an INFP is open-minded-ness and general kindness. Idk, I guess it just depends on the person as to how accurate it is.
bulldog521521 If you think INFPs are defacto open minded you are not really grasping how this works. All introverts with a "P" type lead with an introverted judging function and these are very personal and likely to make the person, at least initially, closed minded. The introverted feeling INFPs lead with is a massive filter that weeds out everything that does not conform to their inner values. For example, they're very unlikely to accept any statement from someone they dislike or deeply disagree with. If an INFP hates Trump they will reject EVERYTHING he says even if a single statement is true. Conversely "judgemental" IXXJs would be a lot more likely to conceded points from people they really dislike.
Jordan Kyte But then why does every general description of the INFP say that they're typically very open-minded? It does make sense that they would be close-minded when it comes to their core values, but that just makes it confusing as to why they're portrayed as so open-minded. I've always straddled the line between P and J, so maybe that's why I'm so open-minded.
bulldog521521 That's were it gets tricky. They do have open mindness that comes from the Ne. If something passes their Fi filter they will certainly consider all angles. In this case the "lack" of open mindness comes from ethics judgments, not intellectual ones, if something conflicts with their ethics or feelings it's not allowed past the "door". Anything else can be worked with. INTPs on the other hand act this way with their logical judgements. If something seems too out there intellectually to fit what they see as logical truth, it's not even considered. This is why they generally are so closed to esoteric things or theories that are not in line with their inner truth. Once it clears the filter it will be considered through so many angles it makes your head spin.
This is where these types actually ARE open minded. INFJs, INTJs... we're a lot more likely to initially listen to an idea. It immediately clears the first filter because it's not a judgment function. We often reject it quickly because Ni is a build up function and as such it's previous work seems to apply to most every new input we get. We trust our No tremendously so we often tend to be very prone to make snap judgments. We are often right, but it is this snap judgment that makes us seem, well more judgmental. However you must be assured that we will have considered it, whatever it was, which doesn't happen with those who lead with Feeling or Thinking functions.
In the end my original point tried to point out that the Myers Briggs letters are useful for a general idea and easy categorization, however knowing the functions that are the backbone and how they operate is most important.
Jordan Kyte Ah, interesting. I guess I must be equal parts perceiving and judging then (I'm not really familiar with the actual functions that make these categories) because not only do I encourage new ideas/viewpoints, but I actually explore them at great lengths as well. Maybe I just have very few core values or something. The only thing I'm intolerant of is close-minded people. People who immediately dismiss everything that doesn't line up exactly with their views aggravate me to no end, but other than that, I can get along with pretty anyone regardless of how far-fetched their views are or even if they're completely opposite of mine.
You realize in your first post, you actually appear judgmental and stubborn and not at all open minded? Even your response to Jordan Kyte is defensive and not warm to the new information. I will say, you are at least considering it but you also give this judgment laden response, " but I actually explore them at great lengths as well" saying your sister and mother do not. You have given no examples or anything but your personal (Fi) opinion. (P and J do not "interchange" btw) This is also value driven, "People who immediately dismiss everything that doesn't line up exactly with their views aggravate me to no end." It is based in emotion. Have you considered the possibility your family members have a different value?
As usual vox has no sense of nuance and totally missed the mark
The Myers Briggs is inaccurate because there is no middleground for anything. You are either an introvert or an extrovert. Say I got 51% extrovert and 49% introvert but the test doesn't care, I am viewed as a full extrovert and the results say i'm fully social. Also the questions you answer only make you a little bit more of the one side or the other. If I say that i need a break after talking to other people, and to every other question I answer the extroverted option, the test doesn't take into account that I can't talk to people for long, meaning if I were to use this test to determine the rype of education I should get it would most likely not work for me. Also you made an argument that the study vox used was old, but you can test this by yourself. I took the test after a month and I got a completely different result than last time. The test just doesn't take some variables into account that would make it a viable test for other things than just entertainment.
Extraversion.
But are acceptable in English.
I have always seen it spelled extroversion.
Oxford, Cambridge and Merriam-Webster spell it "Extroversion" and "Extraversion" is classified as an 'alternative' if mentioned at all.
Just for the sake of finding common ground, check out this article: blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-difference-between-extraversion-and-extroversion/
It's odd that the compilers of the dictionaries seem to have missed, or confused, the Latin root of the words Extra and Intro. I disagree with the writer that it's "...an unnecessary rift!" but a fortunate accident. Using "Extra" and "Extro" for scientific and general usage thus avoiding the issue of language drift. Just look at the problems science has with the term "Theory" - which affectively has two different meanings; the scientific one and common usage.
Vox's argument is not "Whatever the majority believes is true," but "Whatever the scientific/academic/professional community has consensus on is most probable."
That's still an argument from ad populum.
It's funny how short these anti-MBTI videos are, lol Fools...
because it doesn't take long to debunk it 🤷♀️
@@7reever Is all typology debunked too in your opinion?
@@Coneman3 It's not about opinions. I don't know all typology systems, MBTI however could never prove that they are right to start with. I mean if I postulate a theory, I'm the one who has to prove it and not others have to debunk it. But since people love little drawers to put themselves and others into and due to the Barnum effect believe what they read about "their" type, scientists took their time to examine MBTI and could prove that it's not accurate. The only ones who claim MBTI to be right are the ones who make money out of it. I mean I get that it's funny with all the sketches and memes but instead of spending time learning a flawed system people should spend time and learn about real psychology - the big 5 for example, if you are interested in personality.
@@7reever Definition of a theory...
A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts. ... A theory not only explains known facts; it also allows scientists to make predictions of what they should observe if a theory is true. Scientific theories are testable.
Personality is not like physics. We can't prove someone is more caring or logical than another person for absolutely certain, but this does not mean the theory has no validity.
@@Coneman3 What a neat little special pleading fallacy right there.
decent
this also problem in science too. if does not fit the paradigm it is rejected. it kind funny how atheist try to argue science is objective when scientist are not and only support theories that support there world view. the science on climate change is the clearest example.
Theories are based on observations. Observations are objective.
+Miles Jackson
Although observations are objective, an observation or fact will never be able to prove anything else than its own reliableness in its own specific context. A theory is mere speculation based on observations and facts, and has the reliableness a bunch of facts hurdled together in the minds of a bunch of scientists in relative agreement.
:)
The problem with MBTI and Jungian Typology is that they don't have any philosophical and/or scientific basis. Therefore its pop psychology at best.
If MBTI isn't meaningless, then why, despite being tested as an INTP (TiNe), do I dislike politeness/formality because it's inefficient and betraying the truth (Te trait)?