Are Personality Types Scientifically Valid?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 сен 2024
- This video deals with how psychological type can be seen through a scientific worldview. Popular personality typing systems such as the Myers Briggs Type Indicator are discussed in their relation to standard practices in modern science.
can you add a fifth cognitive element other than intuition, sensing, feeling and thinking? it's hard to say these four doesn't exist, right? can you say there's no such thing as intuition? or something similar? do i have to prove i have a nose with experiments? i obviously have it. do you truly need me to prove you these exists? because i will. which jungian cognitive function doesn't exist? give me an example. say something like wtf is ti, don't get it. say something, there's no such thing as ne, there's only se. then we will go from there.
this is psychology and the top two dogs were freud and jung in their time. who was supposed to analyze their data? based on what? let's say bunch of lower level psycologists found a group. does that give them the ability or authority to judge jung's and freud's discoveries / theories? what this group supposed to do? how they can contrast and compare jung and freuds theories without having even more patients than them?
psychology is not a hard science. psychology is not physics. if you are going to criticize jung like this, then you have to criticize all the other psychologists and psychiatrists and philosophers and sociologists and anthropologists and evolutionary biologists and quantum physicists too. string theory? what the hell are you talking about? where's the proof? chemistry can be scientific enough. but even then, drugs have all these side effects. deadly side effects sometimes.
entps are obviously not exact copies of each other. that's why entp is a "type". types are not ultra-specific things. green, for example is a color type one can argue but in nature leaves and stuff has specks and stuff on them. let alone humans and their possible psychological "specks".
still though, human brains, especially in our age very much tend to "specialize" and this specialization can be typed / categorized.
is big five scientific? maybe so. but it's kinda very useless too. first of all, extraversion comes from jung so get rekt! then neuroticism is extremely vague, you can be all sorts of very different neurotic ranging from ocd to narc to sadistic so which one?
then, the rest is obvious therefore useless for self-growth and exploration. do you truly needed a test to tell if you are conscientious? then there's no hope for you. you are huge dumdum. openness, agreableness, the same.
anyhow, we can surely add many subtypes to "known" 16 types based on those specks. trauma specks, culture specks, younameit specks, genetic specs, socioeconomic specs. but that would be ugly and even more confusing.
some people will be very stereotypically entp but then there will be many deviants forms of it. an entp who lost his parents early will need to use his se and te and stuff. at this point one might say, okay but is he still an entp after 10 years of dealing with the world on his own? yes and no. he will be an entp with a sharp se role and te demonstrative one can say. or one can say he changed types and he now is an entj. for some reason he is really funky and stuff for entjs though. i wonder why! hmmm, something tells me it's because this is typology and types are not clones of each other.
Agree,,
I thik MBTI is treasure.
There is no sick people mentally, like neurotic, etc.
It ia their cognitive function.
If your cognitive function brings you problem, start from them and learn your way up.
Understanding all MBTI, help me a lot.
From a really introverted INTP, learning MBTI i can maneuver my way in life.
Understanding my sister (ESFJ), my brother (ESTP), my mom (INFJ), my father (ESTP)
My co worker (ESTJ)
My boss (ENTP)
My big boss (ESTP)
MBTI proven to help me alot in life, in nearly two months of my observation using it in my life.
No need to test MBTI. We can test it by ourself and enjoy it. Thank you Sir Carl Jung in heaven, blessed your soul.
Hello, what do you think about how researchers have shown a link between brain scans and mbti types. For EX. INFJ's has more brain activity in the hippocampus that can explain their uniqueness with their dominant Introvert Intuition, NI.
Socionics and/or MBTI will never be scientifically valid because they both provide a framework to personality that allows and accounts for change over time. For instance, let’s say I’m an young, undeveloped INTP (iTeNiSeF). I take the test and get strong INTP. As I get older and develop, I start to focus on my lower two functions eF and iS. Then I take a test where I answer differently based on my perceived change and I’d get ESFJ (eFiSeNiT). Really all I’ve done is develop my lower functions but now I test as my duality which In MBTI is all the opposite letters INTP to ESFJ. So MBTI is actually the worse system to be scientifically valid but it’s easier to explain to people in normal vocabulary then model A. The Big 5 is scientifically valid because instead of testing for overall types it tests for individual function.
Hi Arm Chair Typology, Have you investigated the cognitive functions behind mbti? Introverted or extroverted intuition, sensing, feeling, thinking- the stacks, four sides of the mind etc?
i just subbed, you are great!!! will you be doing a video focused on telling whether someone is an ESFJ anytime soon? there’s a lack of videos on ESFJs based on the function theory, all i can find are bs 16personalities-style videos on ESFJs 😭
btw i subbed on my other account called « Reina » and im commenting with this one, because my comments don’t work on my other account 🥺
youtube finally un-shadowbanned me, its me!!
look into this objective personality youtube channel, you'll find some interesting stuff to rant about.