Brilliant dissection of this topic. I'd wager that MBTI isn't as popular because (1) 16 Personalities test sufficiently muddied the waters on the topic of personality making it very difficult to objectively discuss, and (2) A lot of people aren't ready to truly see themselves in the way Myers-Briggs is asking you to.
Oh this was great! So, so many thoughts. I think that what you touched on Antonia about the fact that Meyers’ Briggs has its roots in philosophy is at the crux of the main issue at hand. The era of technocracy and modernism is over, or at least on it’s decline. That doesn’t mean that we haven’t hit amazing heights and benefits from what it had to offer. However, it’s sort of like we needed to survey the land out and now we can build a civilization. The scientific method and push towards rationalism and the definition of truth being pushed into the radar of a very narrow, but provable space was needed after truth had been somewhat controlled by more subjective means before. Nobody wants to relive the dark ages, or the crusades etc. But, this fight for power over our subconscious has been at play and is pretty primal for well for as long as civilizations have attempted to exist. The human brain is the most complex part of the human body and one of the most complex systems that we know of, emphasis on that of which we know of. But, it’s a larger part of a sentient system that is the human nervous system which requires the endocrine system to exist. Without either of these overarching systems well then we have about 9 lbs of fat connected in ways that we cannot measure. We cannot measure…. To error is to be human, to wish to control the universe that we live in, to fear the unknown and to chase certainty… to exist, or not to. These are all at stake here. The problem with focusing only on whether, or not one circumvision of the truth is more accurate than another is that none of them actually exist in the first place. If Einstein’s correct than the best that we can do is a three point version of reality and even than it might be even more complex and based off of vibrations and solely vibrations, which should freak you out if you comprehend it. But, also that’s the point: we were never supposed to be able to lock down all of the truths around us to begin with. The best that we can do is to try to holistically understand what’s within our grasps and try to use that for good and not for evil. The Big Five is simpler and answered the question that Psychology stumbled with for decades as the Stem subjects burst into their full glory of technocracy hey day and like the SFs before them conquered villages and proved that their abilities to conquer the physical world and people’s hearts, or maybe just their souls were used to manifest their own strengths as destinies… so too have the NTs fallen for the godlike status that proving your worth to the proverbial tribe accomplishes. It’s an ego run and good on them. The Big Five comes close to measuring variables and at mass scale. It’s finally calmed the fight for Psychology to get to sit at the table with a measurable tool just like physics can build rockets, biology and chemistry can save lives etc. But, if you only use one tool to define measurement like hard science, than your universe has to be extremely narrow and stay narrow. It’s a mistake to value only one method and one arena. If you scan way out. It’s a mistake. We loose our ethics if we forget the humanities. We loose our ability to understand how we even formed the ability to rationalize and once more the meaning of anything if we forego philosophy. We lose our souls if we forget psychology and theology and use only science to measure a person’s worth. We need all of the pillars of academia to understand maybe just a little bit of the truth. But, again the point isn’t just to prove things, provide truths and bolster our technologies to endless progress. We are meant to live life to live….. to live…… and that’s what Jung was pointing at. All of these systems should not be obsessed over, or only used to understand the most complex species to exist. We don’t have to compete to be here. We just are here and letting go of that struggle… that’s the true walk. Jung saw some hirogliffs left on the cave walls from wisdom that came before and he left us a treasure map so that we could choose our own adventure and maybe come close to wholeness and circumventing our truths even if just for a little while so that we could strive to live better truths for not just us, but for everyone else on the planet. That’s what sages and prophets do… they point to the truth and hope that you find it 😊.
Had an interesting conversation at a choir rehearsal with two people who had been into MBTI for a long time. We exchanged types, then they instantly asked if I was into Big 5. They sat and talked about Big 5 for several minutes but it didn’t go anywhere after they had compared their relative scores in the 5 categories. They didn’t talk about what they’re working on, nothing. So it felt more like astrology, which I’ve had people tell me Myers Briggs is. So you’re open and agreeable… and so?… it’s like a snapshot instead of a video… and I felt that way after I took the assessment as well. Not to mention that those of us who score as highly sensitive probably score as neurotic on this test. I’m betting Jordan Peterson isn’t highly sensitive by Elaine Aron’s assessment… 😊 So I just don’t see where it takes me…
Thank you so much for tackling this topic. My best friend who is a psychotherapist and I often talk about the MBTI and she also sees great value in using it. Her sister is a botanist (PhD) and is in that group of folks who dismiss it, which frustrates us. I sent them this and your previous video (why people attack the MBTI) in the hopes of helping her to at least be more open to it. 🤞🏼
Big 5 is definitely incomplete, but the correlation is undeniable. They can be used as a bridge between each other to better understand each individual. As time goes on hopefully the Big 5 promoters see the reason of cognitive functions and how they can transfer well between each other
I think that Big 5 is attractive in academic circles especially in socio-economic and socio-behavioral/cultural analysis because of it's simplicity. E.g. Country A is more open vs Country B is less so. But when it comes to personality development, understanding, learning about how to navigate interpersonal relationships, then that's where I feel Big 5 loses it's value because there's no real mechanism to ask deeper questions or to understand your motivations and inner mechanisms.
So is it fair to say that MBTI is attempting to describe how someone's mind gathers and processes information whereas Big 5 is attempting to describe the traits that the person manifests as a result of how their mind gathers and processes information without delving into how?
Antonia nailed it when she said that psychologists are trying to make personality a hard science. I just don’t think that’s ever going to happen. It’s more of an art. I’m with Joel. I’ve been annoyed and frustrated with the Big Five from day one. I do not see what the big deal is and thought I must be misunderstanding something, but I don’t think so. Perhaps I’m just making the mistake of comparing it to the MBTI, which is the gold standard in my mind. The MBTI is superior in my opinion. The Big Five is pretty useless to me by comparison. The more you understand the MBTI, the more you see its usefulness, nuance, depth, complexity and pure elegance. It’s absolutely beautiful. And despite how crazy I’m going to sound in saying this, I believe, IF you go deep enough, the MBTI reveals possible evidence of the divine in its perfection. Joel’s understanding of peer-review and science is off. I’ve got two science degrees (B.S and a Master of Science) and he’s seemingly unaware of the underpinnings of the Scientific Method as it is used in experimental design and peer-review. That’s an important thing to understand before you criticize science. Yes, there are scientists who are dishonest. And no, consensus should not be a factor in determining validity, and as far as I know, it’s not. It’s simply a side effect. Anyone who’s using consensus as a measure of validity reveals their lack of understanding of science in the process. So while you have bad apples in every field, including science, you don’t throw out the baby with the bath water.
@@hfortenberry Joel can correct me if I’m misrepresenting him, but I think he’s recognizing that people who wield the phrase “pseudo-science” as a weapon are usually are talking about consensus in academic or intellectual circles. Actual science - aka the scientific method - doesn’t care about consensus, which I mentioned and he agreed with me immediately afterward. Thanks for the comment! -Antonia
Thank you for the comment. I can see your point about peer review. Help me clarify my thinking with these raw unedited thoughts... - I don't think the Atom Bomb needed to be peer reviewed after it was detonated. We just agree that the science is settled no matter what people say. In 1945 we had two cities that were leveled with that tech. Pretty strong scientific proof as far as I would judge it. At this point any study would have to challenge the nature of reality to supersede my thinking about the A-Bomb. - I thought the idea of a Flat Earth had been debunked and was in the same category of the Atom Bomb. But now I'm seeing a lot more "peer review" type of energy around the idea that the earth is in fact flat. Larger and larger cohorts of Flat Earth folks are finding "the science" in it. I'm trying to stay open to the groupthink... but I'm dubious. I could read what you're saying as - "stay open because if this many people are seeing this [fill in subject/happening] there may be something to it." - I can see peer review being important for subjective or self-reported fields. For example - a way to measure/report on a subjective lived experience or inner state. - Final thought... when science, as an example, asks me to redefine how I see biology because a peer reviewed study came out saying blah...blah...blah... I tend to group those folks in with the Flat Earthers in my mind. In your opinion - what is a meta-heuristic I could use to sort all of these ideas? Thanks again for the comments. ~ Joel
I have never understood the argument that Big Five is somehow more valid than MBTI. I would personally argue that MBTI has more validity,with the functions,how they show up for people in different placements,the depth of the system,etc. Especially in John Beebe's model. Personally,I just find Big Five very boring,and don't see much value in it. Not saying it doesn't have any,just that I don't see it🤷 Especially not above another system.
yeah honestly after taking the big 5 i felt it was a waist of money and time it was less accurate due to not handling nuance well also having the system be passed on a comparison to the results of others really does not make sense to me also the added political perspective was honestly unnecessary inaccurate and continuously puts people into inescapable political pattern that is a flawed echo chamber full of people to blind or dumb to see they are being manipulated... the mbti and socionics test was not perfect but better at breaking down how i might see the world and make decisions in different situations, and areas i can choose to focus on or maybe blind to. again not perfect but also not filled with the bad vs god left vs right bs the world tries to feed people.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
PersonalityHacker.com/Cards - Personality Cards
Brilliant dissection of this topic. I'd wager that MBTI isn't as popular because (1) 16 Personalities test sufficiently muddied the waters on the topic of personality making it very difficult to objectively discuss, and (2) A lot of people aren't ready to truly see themselves in the way Myers-Briggs is asking you to.
Oh this was great! So, so many thoughts. I think that what you touched on Antonia about the fact that Meyers’ Briggs has its roots in philosophy is at the crux of the main issue at hand. The era of technocracy and modernism is over, or at least on it’s decline. That doesn’t mean that we haven’t hit amazing heights and benefits from what it had to offer. However, it’s sort of like we needed to survey the land out and now we can build a civilization. The scientific method and push towards rationalism and the definition of truth being pushed into the radar of a very narrow, but provable space was needed after truth had been somewhat controlled by more subjective means before. Nobody wants to relive the dark ages, or the crusades etc. But, this fight for power over our subconscious has been at play and is pretty primal for well for as long as civilizations have attempted to exist. The human brain is the most complex part of the human body and one of the most complex systems that we know of, emphasis on that of which we know of. But, it’s a larger part of a sentient system that is the human nervous system which requires the endocrine system to exist. Without either of these overarching systems well then we have about 9 lbs of fat connected in ways that we cannot measure. We cannot measure…. To error is to be human, to wish to control the universe that we live in, to fear the unknown and to chase certainty… to exist, or not to. These are all at stake here. The problem with focusing only on whether, or not one circumvision of the truth is more accurate than another is that none of them actually exist in the first place. If Einstein’s correct than the best that we can do is a three point version of reality and even than it might be even more complex and based off of vibrations and solely vibrations, which should freak you out if you comprehend it. But, also that’s the point: we were never supposed to be able to lock down all of the truths around us to begin with. The best that we can do is to try to holistically understand what’s within our grasps and try to use that for good and not for evil. The Big Five is simpler and answered the question that Psychology stumbled with for decades as the Stem subjects burst into their full glory of technocracy hey day and like the SFs before them conquered villages and proved that their abilities to conquer the physical world and people’s hearts, or maybe just their souls were used to manifest their own strengths as destinies… so too have the NTs fallen for the godlike status that proving your worth to the proverbial tribe accomplishes. It’s an ego run and good on them. The Big Five comes close to measuring variables and at mass scale. It’s finally calmed the fight for Psychology to get to sit at the table with a measurable tool just like physics can build rockets, biology and chemistry can save lives etc. But, if you only use one tool to define measurement like hard science, than your universe has to be extremely narrow and stay narrow. It’s a mistake to value only one method and one arena. If you scan way out. It’s a mistake. We loose our ethics if we forget the humanities. We loose our ability to understand how we even formed the ability to rationalize and once more the meaning of anything if we forego philosophy. We lose our souls if we forget psychology and theology and use only science to measure a person’s worth. We need all of the pillars of academia to understand maybe just a little bit of the truth. But, again the point isn’t just to prove things, provide truths and bolster our technologies to endless progress. We are meant to live life to live….. to live…… and that’s what Jung was pointing at. All of these systems should not be obsessed over, or only used to understand the most complex species to exist. We don’t have to compete to be here. We just are here and letting go of that struggle… that’s the true walk. Jung saw some hirogliffs left on the cave walls from wisdom that came before and he left us a treasure map so that we could choose our own adventure and maybe come close to wholeness and circumventing our truths even if just for a little while so that we could strive to live better truths for not just us, but for everyone else on the planet. That’s what sages and prophets do… they point to the truth and hope that you find it 😊.
Had an interesting conversation at a choir rehearsal with two people who had been into MBTI for a long time. We exchanged types, then they instantly asked if I was into Big 5. They sat and talked about Big 5 for several minutes but it didn’t go anywhere after they had compared their relative scores in the 5 categories. They didn’t talk about what they’re working on, nothing. So it felt more like astrology, which I’ve had people tell me Myers Briggs is. So you’re open and agreeable… and so?… it’s like a snapshot instead of a video… and I felt that way after I took the assessment as well. Not to mention that those of us who score as highly sensitive probably score as neurotic on this test. I’m betting Jordan Peterson isn’t highly sensitive by Elaine Aron’s assessment… 😊 So I just don’t see where it takes me…
Thank you so much for tackling this topic. My best friend who is a psychotherapist and I often talk about the MBTI and she also sees great value in using it.
Her sister is a botanist (PhD) and is in that group of folks who dismiss it, which frustrates us. I sent them this and your previous video (why people attack the MBTI) in the hopes of helping her to at least be more open to it. 🤞🏼
Big 5 is definitely incomplete, but the correlation is undeniable. They can be used as a bridge between each other to better understand each individual.
As time goes on hopefully the Big 5 promoters see the reason of cognitive functions and how they can transfer well between each other
Good use case. Thank you for watching and commenting. ~ Joel
I think that Big 5 is attractive in academic circles especially in socio-economic and socio-behavioral/cultural analysis because of it's simplicity. E.g. Country A is more open vs Country B is less so. But when it comes to personality development, understanding, learning about how to navigate interpersonal relationships, then that's where I feel Big 5 loses it's value because there's no real mechanism to ask deeper questions or to understand your motivations and inner mechanisms.
So is it fair to say that MBTI is attempting to describe how someone's mind gathers and processes information whereas Big 5 is attempting to describe the traits that the person manifests as a result of how their mind gathers and processes information without delving into how?
Agreed
*snaps, snaps, snaps, in applause like in spoken word*
Not only "pseudoscience", but many will often from there liken it to "astrology". An addressing of that is needed too.
Thanks for the thought. We could do some content around this in the future. ~ Joel
Antonia nailed it when she said that psychologists are trying to make personality a hard science. I just don’t think that’s ever going to happen. It’s more of an art.
I’m with Joel. I’ve been annoyed and frustrated with the Big Five from day one. I do not see what the big deal is and thought I must be misunderstanding something, but I don’t think so. Perhaps I’m just making the mistake of comparing it to the MBTI, which is the gold standard in my mind. The MBTI is superior in my opinion. The Big Five is pretty useless to me by comparison. The more you understand the MBTI, the more you see its usefulness, nuance, depth, complexity and pure elegance. It’s absolutely beautiful. And despite how crazy I’m going to sound in saying this, I believe, IF you go deep enough, the MBTI reveals possible evidence of the divine in its perfection.
Joel’s understanding of peer-review and science is off. I’ve got two science degrees (B.S and a Master of Science) and he’s seemingly unaware of the underpinnings of the Scientific Method as it is used in experimental design and peer-review. That’s an important thing to understand before you criticize science. Yes, there are scientists who are dishonest. And no, consensus should not be a factor in determining validity, and as far as I know, it’s not. It’s simply a side effect. Anyone who’s using consensus as a measure of validity reveals their lack of understanding of science in the process. So while you have bad apples in every field, including science, you don’t throw out the baby with the bath water.
@@hfortenberry Joel can correct me if I’m misrepresenting him, but I think he’s recognizing that people who wield the phrase “pseudo-science” as a weapon are usually are talking about consensus in academic or intellectual circles.
Actual science - aka the scientific method - doesn’t care about consensus, which I mentioned and he agreed with me immediately afterward.
Thanks for the comment!
-Antonia
@@Personalityhacker Ohhh okay, yes I was glad you made the correction, but I missed his agreement. Thank you for clarifying.
Thank you for the comment. I can see your point about peer review. Help me clarify my thinking with these raw unedited thoughts...
- I don't think the Atom Bomb needed to be peer reviewed after it was detonated. We just agree that the science is settled no matter what people say. In 1945 we had two cities that were leveled with that tech. Pretty strong scientific proof as far as I would judge it. At this point any study would have to challenge the nature of reality to supersede my thinking about the A-Bomb.
- I thought the idea of a Flat Earth had been debunked and was in the same category of the Atom Bomb. But now I'm seeing a lot more "peer review" type of energy around the idea that the earth is in fact flat. Larger and larger cohorts of Flat Earth folks are finding "the science" in it. I'm trying to stay open to the groupthink... but I'm dubious. I could read what you're saying as - "stay open because if this many people are seeing this [fill in subject/happening] there may be something to it."
- I can see peer review being important for subjective or self-reported fields. For example - a way to measure/report on a subjective lived experience or inner state.
- Final thought... when science, as an example, asks me to redefine how I see biology because a peer reviewed study came out saying blah...blah...blah... I tend to group those folks in with the Flat Earthers in my mind.
In your opinion - what is a meta-heuristic I could use to sort all of these ideas? Thanks again for the comments.
~ Joel
I have never understood the argument that Big Five is somehow more valid than MBTI. I would personally argue that MBTI has more validity,with the functions,how they show up for people in different placements,the depth of the system,etc. Especially in John Beebe's model. Personally,I just find Big Five very boring,and don't see much value in it. Not saying it doesn't have any,just that I don't see it🤷 Especially not above another system.
I feel like big 5 is for therapists, and mbti is for coaches
I use mbti as a therapist.
Thank you for the comment. ~ Joel
@@mimimo555 Thank you for sharing how you use the tool. ~ Joel
I think big5 is more for sensors and mbti more for intuitives. It goes way deeper and is way more complex
I'm not sure what you're saying about therapists with this. Therapists are interested in helping one grow and DEFINITELY in understanding the "why".
yeah honestly after taking the big 5 i felt it was a waist of money and time it was less accurate due to not handling nuance well also having the system be passed on a comparison to the results of others really does not make sense to me also the added political perspective was honestly unnecessary inaccurate and continuously puts people into inescapable political pattern that is a flawed echo chamber full of people to blind or dumb to see they are being manipulated...
the mbti and socionics test was not perfect but better at breaking down how i might see the world and make decisions in different situations, and areas i can choose to focus on or maybe blind to.
again not perfect but also not filled with the bad vs god left vs right bs the world tries to feed people.
❤