Discover Yourself with Myers-Briggs (MBTI): The Sad TRUTH
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 июл 2024
- In this video, I uncover the truth behind the MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator). This personality test has been around for over 70 years and is still being used by many businesses and schools today. But is this test really accurate and reliable?
I discuss the history and development of the MBTI test, as well as the research that has been done on it. In doing so, I reveal that you should avoid this test when possible. Watch this video to find out the truth about the MBTI test!
#psychology #MBTI #personality
✨TIMELINE:
0:00 Intro: 16 Types of People?
1:46 Jung & the origins of the MBTI
3:04 Are there psychology types?
4:29 Myers and Briggs
5:29 How it "works"
6:35 Five Reasons to avoid this test
10:33 Summary
✨ABOUT ME:
I received my Ph.D. from the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. I joined the School of Psychology at the University of Queensland in Australia in 2007, where my research and teaching are focused on social neuroscience.
✨OTHER VIDEOS OF MINE YOU MIGHT LIKE:
=Unraveling the Riddles of Mesmerism: How Hypnosis Began: • Strange Magnets and Me...
=Everything You Always Wanted to Know about Freud: • Everything You Always ...
=5 Apps Every Psychology Student Needs (and They're Free!): • 5 Apps Every Psycholog...
=Questioning Psychology's Findings: A Real Crisis: • Questioning Psychology...
=Australian vs. American Universities: • Australian vs. America...
=My Goal for the Year was to FAIL 10 TIMES! • My goal for the year w...
✨ MY EQUIPMENT (includes some affiliate links):
-Main Camera:
Sony ZV-1 Vlog Camera, amzn.to/3YlcjKb
Hard Case for Sony ZV-1 Camera by LTGEM, amzn.to/3QyatDX
Sony GP-VPT2BT Shooting Grip, amzn.to/3Kweogt
-Teleprompter
Glide Gear TMP Adjustable Teleprompter, amzn.to/3s1YYKI
NEEWER Teleprompter Remote Control (RT-110), amzn.to/3QplzL9
-Audio:
Zoom H5 Hand Recorder, amzn.to/3qbOnfL
Selens 190cm Microphone Stand, amzn.to/3QrXWl6
-Microphones:
Saramonic Blink500 Pro, amzn.to/3QnlqYN
Røde Videomic Pro, amzn.to/45fC5BB
-Software:
Apple Final Cut Pro X
Storyblocks.com
Canva (for thumbnails)
✨ WHERE TO FOLLOW ME:
- PERSONAL WEBSITE: socialneuro.com
- INSTAGRAM: / socialneuro
----
✨ Music From EpidemicSound: share.epidemicsound.com/tjrxd3
Subscriber count: 1148
Have you taken the MBTI? Did it seem to accurately describe you?
Yes 💯
Yes, it mostly did
Thank you for this video. I have taken the test from several websites and most times I got INTJ few times ISTJ, INTP and even INFJ.
I don't believe cognitive functions have a solid comprehensive basis. A range or spectrum seems more according to the truth. MBTI is popular because it categorizes people and people like categorization "my group", "your group" etc. This leads to more prejudices than those that already exist.
Only online quizes and while the results are very consistent, they score consistently in the middle of the scale on two axes. The description of my "type" is basically paraphrasing of what I selected while filling the test.
Divination. Their study came from occult.
‘Do not turn to mediums or seek out spiritists, for you will be defiled by them. I am the Lord your God.
Good job. I'm a retired psychologist, and I participate on a retirement forum, where a lot of the members are very fond of the MBTI. They talk about their 'types' a lot. Many of them come from a megacorp background, which I suspect is how they were introduced to the MBTI -- in a management seminar. One time, I told them that the MBTI had weak empirical support, but they didn't want to hear it. Some got upset, saying that the MBTI would long outlast silly ideas like the the Big 5. Ah well! Next time, maybe I'll link your video.
His video is very weak compared to that of Aqualus Gordon who explains why the mbti is very useful. Also the big 5 tells you next to nothing about yourself. Yes, everyone has a personality type. I can't imagine a clinical psychologist not understanding personality types at all, or believing that people don't reflect certain distinct temperamental and cognitive/emotional preferences.
@@MichaelDamianPHD I also can't imagine that of a clinical psychologist. I find that most of these debunkers have a very shallow understanding of the entire mbti ecosystem.
Can I introduce you to Cognitive Functions? Where MBTI is a simplified form. Big 5 measures attributes. MBTI measures processes.
I've gotten different results when I had to take it. On some of the question, I wanted to select more than one answer. Especially since some depended on the circumstances. During classes my Masters in Educational Counseling, they showed it's BS. Sadly, many schools still use it.
It's amazing it's still out there and has so much respect!
I guarantee your professors knew next to nothing about the overall theory. The fact that you wanted to select multiple answers is meaningless. I could help you figure out your type within 20 minutes, and yes everyone has one. The notion that people can't be described by these temperament and functional preferences is naive. They can. What is lacking here is understanding of the model and the terms.
@@MichaelDamianPHDI think they knew more than the amateurs that developed this BS! It's no more reliable than astrology. No actual professionals use this crap!
Brilliant! We need more debunking of the myths that are still out there, even among psychologists. I think Jung's concept of Introvert--Extravert could be accounted for in large part by the existence of ADHD for hyperactivity (Extravert?), (some estimate at 5 to 15%) and the form of ADD that is Attention Deficit without the hyperactivity (Introvert).
Thanks for your feedback! I think Introversion-Extraversion is the personality dimension with the largest contribution of biological factors (Eysenck's theory relied on this), and you're probably right about the role of ADHD in it.
I'm a psychologist and most of the people speaking here are in no position to assess the MBTI theory, as they have little comprehension of the model. MBTI and/or Jung's concepts of type are not at all myths -- they're very useful.
Extroversion and introversion are NOT better understood as ADHD or ADD, for god's sake. That is absurd. ADHD is largely a garbage diagnosis for patterns or difficulties that have multiple causes or expressions.
Woah they're just handing out PhDs to anybody these days, huh?
@@MichaelDamianPHDJudging by Dario Nardis descriptions, big part of ADHD is related to being an xxTP and some to being intuitive.
When I took the test in highschool, I was labeled an INTP
10 years later, I finally got a diagnosis of ADHD
......they are basically the same thing
Even if you have ADHD, you also have a distinct personality type. Also ADHD is a junk diagnosis that can mean almost anything.
Yup, same with me.
@@MichaelDamianPHD Hello, I am curious to know why you say that. Could you please elaborate? Thank you!
@@MichaelDamianPHD That's what I've been wondering for so long, how do you decide something's a disorder and something else is normal, what is adhd really? Doesn't it do the exact same thing as mbti - describing people's personalities? How do you decide when something's not science anymore if psychology is science?
Thank you very much for sharing this wonderful content. 🇧🇷 🙌🏾
Thank you very much your feedback!!
As a society, we are constantly trying to move away from stereotyping. MBTI is another form of stereotyping, and I think it does far more harm than good. I have not gained one iota of benefit from it, ever. My type comes out as INTJ or INTP. I deplore it. I am not an introvert.
mbti is the lowest most superficial part of it
That's the point. It's supposed to be superficial. To understand how people prefer to view themselves based on their behavior.
I view personality as a set of preferences. It's not nature (rigid). It's not nurture(external). It's just a name for behavioral, interest, values, emotional patterns, and other choices we based on individual likes and dislikes. I can't think of anything more superficial than choosing who you are. Can you?
@@maruny.e funny lol
Enneagram gives more to it. Ie. I'm infp 9w1 which is different to a 4 or 6
I don't think the MBTI test has much merit, but to be fair to Jung, as far as I understand his reasoning was never meant to be so specific and final. He often states in his literature that a person might change "types" several times throughout life. He never meant to create a universal and final categorization, I see it more as a means to identify different basic traits that can manifest themselves in varying degrees and in different ways as time goes by. He also believed, if I remember correctly, that everyone is all types at once, but that different traits were prioritized during certain periods of life, which is why they could change. The MBTI test took this idea and twisted it beyond comprehension until it fit into a nicely closed box to be sold to the public.
I like many of Jung’s ideas. You’re right, however, about the MBTI people really taking his ideas way too far.
@@socialneuro By the way, wanted to tell you that I loved your videos on William James! I come from a philosophy background and discovering James was a revelation! Glad to know there are more people still interested in him out there.
MBTI does not twist Jung's ideas beyond comprehension, nor does it sell the types as any kind of closed box. The problem is you don't understand what MBTI is saying.
Jung was not saying that everyone is "every type all at once" or that we can all readily change type many times through life. That is all sheer nonsense. How ironic that all the people here declaring that psychologists need to get rid of this fake test or myth have so little psychological understanding of the theory.
@@MichaelDamianPHD There's an interview with Jung, I believe it's in Face to Face, where he literally says that the type is not fixed when the interviewer asks him about what he believes his type to be.
@@GeneralPedrowsky Jung saying type isn't fixed does not mean we can't say we have a type, or that we are all every type and no type all at once, or that our type is constantly changing. Ok? It doesn't mean that. Jung did say he himself was certainly an introverted and thinking type -- and no he did not ever change into a mainly extroverted feeling type etc, etc. Jung just wants people to have a more fluid and not too concrete understanding of it.
I kinda feel this way, it feels as if my personality is just so Random that itll never fit into one and turns out thats just humans
So accurate that I feel like talking to you directly about it😂 point of correction we are humans and we exaggerate things doesn’t mean it’s not true.
I agree!
MBTI is pseudoscience but it's funny.
Imagine 16 personality types having stereotypical traits living everyday life, if that doesn't make you laugh, nothing will.
It's not pseudoscience, and you have zero understanding of the theory. People do display "stereotypical" traits and preferences, which form their unique constellation of personality. Personalities can be described and categorized by combinations of preferences and patterns. If you can't see major personality differences and archetypes among people then maybe you're blind?
I believe the primary issue lies in labeling them "personality" types instead of "mind types." Although people will always categorize each other based on recognizable behavior patterns, it's clear that no one truly thinks there are only 16 personality types. The term "16 cognitive mind types" is far more realistic since human behavior is primarily driven by sensing, intuiting, feeling, and thinking. Are there more aspects to consider? Not really, or perhaps we don't know yet. However, by categorizing our mental functions into these four main groups, we can create a measurable system, hence the concept of 16 types or 8 types.
Nature and the universe function in a pulsing, moving, oscillating manner, and our minds operate similarly, alternating between sensations, intuitions, feelings, and thoughts. Before forcing ourselves into strict categories, we should acknowledge this dynamic nature.
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator uses terms like "feelers" and "thinkers," but in reality, all humans think and feel simultaneously, and sense and intuit simultaneously. These functions exist on a continuum, yet MBTI discussions rarely mention this cognitive axis. Instead, the focus is on the letters I, E, J, and P.
MBTI tests are flawed because they base their questions on behavior, which is an ineffective way to determine a "mind" type. People often lack the clarity and objectivity needed to see themselves accurately, leading to misleading results. A more effective approach would involve seeking insights from family, friends, and society.
The descriptions of functions within MBTI, particularly the distinctions between extroverted and introverted orientations (E/I), are weak and vague. Statements like "you respect tradition if you are Si" or "you care about others' feelings if you are Fe" are overly simplistic. Such descriptions do not adequately capture the nuances of these functions, causing confusion.
The goal should be to understand our weaknesses and why we struggle with certain aspects of life, not to confine ourselves to arbitrarily named boxes. Weak descriptions and vague categories do not help anyone. Moreover, the question about where one gains energy is misleading. A socially extroverted person might claim they gain energy from the outside world, even if they are introverted in reality. MBTI fails to address cognitive and social extroversion and introversion adequately, possibly because it complicates the discussion.
It is disappointing that the MBTI has devolved into pop psychology for teenagers.
Another frequent criticism is the lack of scientific data supporting MBTI. However, psychology is based on the human psyche, which is not always scientifically measurable. We shouldn't place too much faith in empirical data for this field. It's unnecessary to measure someone's capacity for imagination or their sensitivity to the world in a strictly empirical manner. Instead, we can develop a system based on known cognitive functions: feeling, thinking (judging/deciding), sensing, and intuiting (perceiving/observing). Cognitive psychology measures the functions we use most and how our minds process and judge information. It's not about preference; our minds are attuned to specific "frequencies," even if they oscillate and include overtones or harmonics.
It’s not “worthless” it’s just not scientific. Please be careful to not lead your audience into conflating the two.
I've always thought that split-half reliability was an effective technique for this kind of instrument. Any thoughts?
When you have more than just a shallow understanding of mbti theory you can type people rather quickly through observing their behavior, words, and body language. This guy is clearly an ISTJ. He always has been an ISTJ and he always will be an ISTJ. That's not putting him into a box. He's a special and unique ISTJ with his own interests and qualities that are unique to himself. However, he's still an ISTJ. I can say that with 100% certainty. This tells me his cognitive preferences for introverted sensing and extraverted thinking, which unsurprisingly are on full display in this video. He's going to struggle to see possibilities due to inferior extraverted intuition, but of course, that's the core area of growth for ISTJs. He's old enough that he's undoubtedly put the time in to develop that function to some extent, but it's still going to be an area of uncertainty and avoidance. Mbti is about self awareness, self knowledge, and self growth. You use this knowledge to make yourself stronger as an individual. This level of understanding of oneself and one's path for growth is the true strength of mbti typology.
Isn't it supposed to represent preferences not boxes? Not defending MBTI but also not sure this is exactly an unbiased representation of the test. Everyone is all the things the test just measures preferences.
If personality changes wouldn't the types changing be a good thing?
I think it's just fun, like horoscopes. Shouldn't be presented as science or particularly useful.
Even if these separate cognitive functions exist, and we use them preferentially, it's with far greater fluidity, flexibility, according to numerous variables than the ways described by MBTI or Socionics. They're for people who like or need easy labels, boxes, identities for themselves or others. They rarely use it as a tool for growth or individuation, but as a way to explain their weaknesses, limitations behaviour, and keep themselves where they are. Or to make themselves feel superior because they're this type or that. We should've moved beyond it as most psychology has, it can be and often is very harmful, there are much better tools for growth and development available now.
How do you claim it is wrong when it is really observable in human behavior?
There are thinking and feeling types...
You are the wrong one.
Mbti was discovered through observation...I observe the characteristics of ESTJ and ISTJ in my colleagues .
The question is did you observe something useful.
I agree that it's not good for career prediction as the management of mbti company said. It's good for defining the intersection of how people perceive themselves and what they like about themselves.
It's useful in social interaction so numerical analysis is useless in judging how good it is. As you've said, it's description, just theory and philosophy. It's validity is the results of using it in social interaction to understand how other people perceive themselves not how well they can chase profit and productivity.
I get a different result every time. I agree that it’s inconsistent
Later i may watch this intj video
The irony is that most of the people commenting negatively about the MBTI, are probably 'STJ types, or at least ST. Your type focuses narrowly on concrete, individual facts and data, placing a heavy emphasis on what is concretely proven and measurable. Your type doesn't value or engage as deeply in the kind of theorizing about human nature and personality that MBTI reflects -- so you devalue or ignore the nuances of the theory and what it describes, in favor of harping on whether the test can accurately measure X, Y or Z.
Without a cohesive understanding of the theory, you're left only with problems of measurement (sure, these exist). You show little tolerance for any concept that can't be measured in extremely concrete terms without subjective personal error (Yes MBTI does require some self-knowledge), so if a concept reflects a tendency that is more fluid and which interacts fluidly with other personality traits, your mind just cannot tolerate entertaining that concept because it's too abstract for you. Or you can't stand the idea because you yourself aren't sure if you're making a subjective error in how you answer the questions. Ah, the horror. That is why you favor the Big 5 which certainly measures traits but is almost useless for describing one's overall personality in a multifaceted way.
The reason for MBTI's popularity and its ability to be fit into various silly memes and stereotypes is precisely because it does describe the archetypal patterns that people reflect. And if you think INFP, ISTJ, ENFP, INFJ and so forth don't define how people actually are, then I say you are just sorely lacking in perception and experience.
To perceive personality properly (your own or someone else's) you have to have an underlying theory and set of concepts that inform your perception. When most of you look at MBTI you entirely ignore the theory, don't know what the terms mean and you blame the model for being simplistic instead of yourself. Instead of understanding that the concept describes a general tendency or preference, you assume it must be describing an all-or-nothing trait, with little nuance. It is not.
So you rebel against the notion that a person is either a thinker or feeler, extravert or introvert, because you think it means they never would use the opposite function or that the functions can't be more balanced in a person. You don't even see that you are projecting your own rigidity and black-and-white thinking onto the model which is more flexible and broad than you can tolerate. It's your atomistic, narrow conception of things that you project onto the model and then complain that it can't measure everything exactly --- while the fact is that it describes and assess the 16 constellations of personality quite adeptly, because these are based on a set of preferences that each person will embody.
Why does each person embody certain functions more fully than others? Becauses our cognitive and perception functions are defined by their contracting focuses, and our psychological energy naturally gets specialized into one side or the other. Some people are highly skilled in objective, abstract thinking while others are highly skilled in perceiving relational dynamics and feelings between people. There have always been the very outgoing "people person" versus the more introverted intellectuals who struggle with the emotional and relational side of life.
There have always those who are more intuitive, abstract and visionary in their perception, feeling or thinking versus those who are more concrete, empirical and practical. To think that most people exist in some perfectly balanced neutral zone between every function is absurd. To think you just "don't fit in any type whatsoever" is childishly naive.
Of course most people will be "a bit more extroverted than introverted" or vice versa, rather than extremely extraverted or introverted. But these terms is still absolutely vital for understanding the different temperamental flow of energy or attention (attention is psychic energy being directed).
Extraversion and introversion also describe how each cognitive function can be directed: i.e. there is extraverted or introverted intuition, extraverted or introverted feeling, and so forth. These have been defined very nicely and fully in many places.
The irony here is that while a clinical or Jungian psychologist would be readily able to understand what these terms mean and very aptly describe, the lay people here are lamenting that psychologists still believe in a "myth" like the MBTI. I believe in it because I understand how deeply and aptly MBTI and Jung have described our basic psychological functions. I can and have assessed many people quite rapidly in my practice, and when I name their basic tendencies and behaviors people are amazed. It helps them finally understand their psychological infrastructure in a way that no other model does. You all lament the test limitations and the "boxes" of MBTI because you don't understand what they are describing and how well the real MBTI test actually does. But the theory goes beyond the test and is the very best theory of personality we have. You can only understand that once you've taken the time to study what the functions mean and how they are directed in a given personality. And the reason most of you do not take the time is of course, because you are not clinical psychologists.
You may be an academic research psychologist or studying cognitive science or neurobiology, but you don't study psychological theories and know very little about human nature or how to help people.
Instead some of you just call our Jungian theories of mind "pseudoscience" which is like saying Shakespeare is a liar because he wrote fictional stories. It only shows how narrow-minded and reductionist you are.
What do you think? My initial "gut feeling" (lol) is that @socialneuro is ISTJ.
The mental gymnastics you people do to make MBTI look workable is amazing to me. On one side it's pretty clear because naturally the mind cannot work otherwise then how the stack works because these forces just naturally distribute in that way like "if you have introverted rational function than after that you extroverted perceiveing function because" DUH BRO that's clear BRO like LOGIC like how can it work otherwise? but if you want to make some kind of clear measurement/methodolodyy/set of coherent definitions than like all of the sudden nonono bro, that's too simplicistic it does not work simple like that you have to get like deeep to get this shit you have to get reaaal and of course you can reduces anyone's psyche into the groups based on 4 dichotomies, or sorry, two, becaue ti=fe and ni=se etc. so why even bother, but bro like you cannot measure it because it's like so nuanced! It's like, you probably wouldn't get it because you're a sensor but not that it means that you're somehow more stupid it's just that you don't get things, you know? And it's not like you cannot be using functions in a flexible way but at the same time I can always say which one of these rigidly defined types you are but again, not like you can measure it, because you also have to be pretty deep to see t if you know what I mean bro, like I can. Holy cow, also how does "some people are highly skilled in objective, abstract thinking while others are highly skilled in perceiving relational dynamics and feelings between people. There have always been the very outgoing "people person" versus the more introverted intellectuals who struggle with the emotional and relational side of life. " translate into "there are basically 8 types of people based on two dichotomies (because fuck the I-xyz and E-xyz distinction they have the same axis and you're just trying to make it look more sophisticated because if you said there are't even 16 types but only 8 people would laugh at you even more) and that applies to everyone"? How does being skilled in abstract thinking prevent you principally from being skilled in relational dynamics? Like if you're so deep I'm sure you can explicate it in more precise terms then "it's like pretty abstract bro". I can imagine examples when it would work like that though and it would be called something like "stunned emotional development" not "personality type". And oh my god, if people start laughing at you, you people just think you came with the notion of emotions vs. thinking and they're not getting you becuase your perception is like so deep and now you get human psychology and it has nothing to do with any kind of ages old notion coming from backwards cultural discourses and you know who was definitely not influenced by them? Jung, people saw things so clearly one hundered years ago they were more open-minded or so and it's not like MBTI pisses all over their founding father anyways. Like sorry I can't do this but it doesn't even matter, it's completely pointless to argue with you because you're head is so deeply stuck between the monstrous cheecks of your bias that no matter what I say you'll be still repeating the same dogma with words in different order.
@@claramarlowe3028Your understanding is that of a child. As arrogant as you are ignorant.
I used to struggle with fitting in a lot and used to fall for this kimd of stuff, and it only exacerbated my insecurity of never fitting in and contributed to my mental illness even more. The more I learn to reject pseudo-scientific bullshit, the more hope it gives me in life. Its way more freeing than any type of religion or quacks claim to be. The more rooted in reality and nuance, the happier I'll be.
thank you
You're welcome
So was Jung trying to say that each of the personalities should be binary? Either you are or aren’t? If so why is the MBTI then ask 5 answers?
Yes, Jung believed you were one or the other: Extraverted or Introverted, Sensing or Intuitive, and Feeler or Thinker (Briggs and Myers added the fourth). Usually the MBTI has you choose between two answers and then there are multiple questions to determine where you are on each of the four binary dimensions.
@@socialneuroWhile I completely agree that the test and 4 letter system make it seem like boxes, this is actually fully by myers briggs. Once you get into (the 8) cognitive functions, it already states that every person does everything, some functions are just preferred. So Jung didn't say that some people do for instance sensing, just that some people prefer introverted sensing (not necessarily isxx's), others extraverted sensing and some introverted or extraverted intuition, while all other functions will be less preferred.
I think big 5 is very good for predicting things but not so good for knowing what goes on in the mind of the person, while the cognitive functions are good for knowing how others see the world, while not being very predictive. (Correct me if I'm wrong though because my knowledge of big 5 is very limited)
So far I haven't seen any empirical evidence to prove or disprove the existence of cognitive functions, which would be nice. If anyone has the title of a study which does either, please share because I would love that. Sorry turned out a bit long, but hopefully I clarified some things
Me hoping I found a good revealing content about mbti, but found another guy who hasn't even researched what MBTI is. Well, first of all, online tests are really inaccurate and your type can change multiple times when you test. But this is a problem of tests, that's why MBTI will never be correct enough for global using. You can find your type correctly only researching by yourself or buying a consultation (wich is a strange way of spending money in my opinion). But It is not correct to equate the invalidity of the test with the invalidity of the typology itself. So, according to MBTI people have 8 cognitive functions and 4 of them forms our personality code. They can be extroverted or introverted. In MBTI system extroversion and introversion mean slightly different things, as it is commonly believed in society. It is not about getting energy, it's about channeling energy inward or outward. And we all need both, so this is a healthy variants for any personality type when this things are balanced, when you feel like an ambivert. Second of all, yes, your personality is changing all the time, because MBTI is not who you are, this is just a corset on which the personality is building. This is some kind of lens through which you perceive the world and yourself, your patterns of thinking and decision-making. This is just another way how we can describe ourselfs and people around. It doesn't have evidence base enough, but it doesn't mean it's useless. MBTI gives use some terms to describe why you like this person, why you don't like another one, why you feel misunderstood by others or why this job is bad for you. Our language is not perfect, so it's nice to complement it.
Well, in addition I'd say, that there are more than 16 personality types. In this community it is common to divide every type on 4 subtypes as well (wich can change through the life). So, we have 64 types. And it is common as well to use enneagram(I know it's independent from MBTI, but this is a fact, that people combine typologys to be more and more clear), wich includes 9 types with 2 subtypes at least. So when I say "I'm an infj 4w5 creative" I mean "I'm one of 1152 personality types". So, dividing people into boxes? I don't really know if all the people need to know their personality type, but it can be a nice tool. So, I hope i have dissolved the arguments from this video a little. But I rather wanted to show that the author did not understand what he was arguing with
What do you think about Dario Nardi?
'It's unscientific by today's standards so it's bad'... I'm sorry but after the Covid crisis the word 'scientific' should not be synonymous to 'trusted, beneficial, good, valid' etc
Your interpretation of myers briggs is so skewed.
Its not "one or the other" or "16 'neatly' organized personalities"
Its a base line for which direction you tend to go, Given the category.
Its not "this or that" its which is more prominent and what does that mean when theyre combined with eachother.
Goodness the bias is showing.
And if it helps at all, I scored 81% on the big 5 agreeableness a few hours ago.
Trying to understand all this, and it's wild. Feels like apples and oranges.
Interesting!! Your interpretation of the MBTI as not being about types seems different to everything I’ve read from the company itself, as well as most scholarly work. I’d be really interested to read anything that you know that talks about it as a baseline for the direction you tend to go. Most personality theorists these days do think of traits as being on continuums.
@@socialneuro I think that to because everyone says that MBTI is fraud mostly says because it's binary options and say you are this or that I personally says that it's more near to indicators and if your type change it's only mean that you are not completely for example 100% I or 100% E maybe you are 52% I and 48% E you are nearly balanced and the changes of the test results is back to the changes of your mental and emotional situation when you answer it's not a way to say I am completely that or that but neither an indicator that I use to now who am I and what to change in my self inorder to be the person that I want to be
@@socialneuro I agree with the argument that MBTI isn't a great measurement tool. Using it is a bit like trying to weigh someone with a yard stick. That said, just because the tool is flawed doesn't mean mass and height don't exist. There's a lot more to these Jungian concepts than the MBTI is capable of showing
@@sossyge3557 You're exactly right. The Jungian concepts are defined very well and the model is quite useful. People can be "typed" (oh, the horror) quite readily with the help of someone who understands the theory, without even using the test.
Let me just qoute good old Carl Jung "There is no such thing as a pure introvert or extrovert. Such a person would be in the lunatic asylum".
ruclips.net/video/tLeXXoumkqU/видео.html
go to 25:58 and just listen from there
Also, the original MBTI is different from what it is today. Back then, it relied more on cognitive functions, similar to Socionics and OPS. Furthermore, Socionics, which is a Jungian inspired model, has been studied in counseling and teamwork with great results. A fun fact is that it is also used in nuclear plants to measure stress, specifically at the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant.
Therefore, it can be concluded that you provided misinformation about Jungian Typology itself. Most psychologists who critique the system seem to disregard Jung's true work and the entire culture of Typology. However, it's a common mistake made by "professionals."
When I get a job because of 4 stupid letters in a test I took:
Ho yeah, I took the MBTI, it was as accurate as my last horoscope.
But I think we can make it simplier, 16 boxes is way too much, lets make it a 2 boxes scale : us and them. Or even a 1 box system => we are all : humans. (well... enough of us anyway so that the others could be concidered statistical anomalies.)
I think the MBTI needs an update to version 2.0 or replacement it totally. The only useful "indications" that make sense are introversion/extroversion. I find the other indications convoluted. There are too many types to make sense. And yes, the test is real junky. LOL Just 2 days ago, I saw a video talking about "autism" as personality trait. And what is "adult autism"? LOL
People seem to want to be put into buckets! :)
There is no difference between MBTI and going to a psychic reading. It is the same but many people do not know that. They are all divination.
@@socialneuro People do fit into buckets, more than they care to admit. But they aren't buckets --- they are unique constellations of preferences and tendencies. And these are not infinite --- there are a few cognitive and perceptual funcitons which Jung described and I challenge you to describe fewer or more. These are defined by MBTI and again, I doubt you could do better. People utilize these functions and everyone tends toward a binary "this" or "that" in their development, for example between thinking and feeling. It is a preference and a specialization, not an either/or.
The nature of the psyche is that energy gets directed into the basic functions and temperamental attitudes to develop specializations. There are blatant, predictable and persistent differences between mechanical engineers, poets, school teachers and actors. Is there variation and nuance? Of course. The model accounts for that. The persistent fact is that MBTI describes people -- and their temperament and functional preferences -- better than any other model. That's why it's so popular. You can snark about data and reliability all you want -- the test isn't perfect -- but before you complain about the test you have to understand the theory underlying it.
You're only covering the surface level of MBTI that is why you're getting vague/general description which tend to overlap with numerous personality types. What you really should be focusing on covering extensively are the cognitive functions for each MBTI type which is distinct for every type.
I'm infp. Basically a sensitive maladaptive daydreaming crybaby
I'm often forced to work with people.
I use the DISG-Profile, because it is simple. Only four letters. It helps, often. Relations are easier to build.
Myer-Briggs is too complicated: too many letters.
I'm a psychologist who works with people and Jungian/mbti is the most comprehensive model of personality, by far.