MBTI Is Basically Astrology
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 лип 2024
- Exploring the history of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and astrology, how they work, and why you shouldn't take them too seriously.
Patreon: / duncanclarke
Instagram: / duncansclarke
Twitter: / duncanc_
Chapters:
0:00 - Origin of Myers-Briggs
2:21 - The scientific context for MBTI
3:42 - Arguments against MBTI
5:46 - History of astrology
7:24 - Other approaches to personality
9:00 - What is personality?
10:50 - Why are MBTI and astrology appealing?
12:34 - Conclusion and end card
References:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathari...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Jung
opentext.wsu.edu/psych105nusb...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Fiv...
MacKenzie, Matthew. “Self-Awareness without a Self: Buddhism and the Reflexivity of
Awareness.” Asian Philosophy , vol. 18, no. 3, 2008, pp. 245-264.
Hume, David. A Treatise of Human Nature. Edited by Ernest Campbell Mossner, Penguin Classics, 1985.
Jreg's youtube channel:
/ jregory
Yeah unlike a truly immovable aspect of my identity like which funny colour I am on the political compass
Being an """introvert""" is boring and cringe, but being a post-left Landian primitivist is based and cool
@@duncanclarke The more words you add to your ideology, the more personality you have
@@qabbala1015 Ideology is my will to power
@@dugglebay3483 making use of others too strong of an attachment to some ideology is my will to power
theres EEG proof of differences in mbti people and it still has some relation to the big 5. These people just dont wanna be labeled as unopen trend followers.
I’ve always considered MBTI to be descriptive rather than prescriptive. Astrology is prescriptive: you’re born at that time, so you’re such a person, and this and this will happen to you. MBTI says: tell me how you behave, and I’ll put a label on the general pattern of behavior you describe, a pattern that can be identified in a certain subset of the population. So I think saying they’re equally wrong is going too far, but I agree that it’s easy to misuse either of them and that MBTI is flawed if only by virtue of being ONLY self-reported. The danger lies in entrenching oneself in any unhelpful self-belief, limiting the ability to challenge and reform oneself.
+1
also, one shouldn't feel caged by it, cause you change and so does your category
Exactly my though thanks to put the world I can understand that we critisize MBTI but if it's always comparing with astrology it's make me rolling my eyes so hard, NPC that thinking they smart but repeat something wrong 🤣
But it's not really descriptive. It's theoretical.
That's why the Big-5 actually *is* descriptive. It's empirical.
@@DangRenBo well some peoples telling that empirical studies aren't relavent at least what I seen with COVID treatment that been reject for this reason
The main problem is people misuse MBTI. MBTI types are interesting and the functions can help you analyze yourself but every single individual is unique so it doesn't say all that much. People think that MBTI is supposed to completely represent them but it's more of just like preferences. What do you tend to do most often. There are four types I might be but in reality there's only one I tend to be and the others are only what I might look like.
This is so f***ing true and I know what side does that rhymes with it and now it is ruining MBTA and then and then 16 personality test that is what’s ruining MTI and has these people say it’s puedosicence
Yep, it's good info for those who know how to use it and not overinterprete it.
@@markusaurelius83 yeah
You're still incorrect though... when you claim "in reality there's only one I tend to be"
Because Jung literally did admit during an interview that "a type is not static, it changes in the course of life" and that claim of his have had successfully proven accurate after the Covid pandemic hit people's social situations. In fact, psychologists use the Big 5 test and they found out that tens of thousands of people's personality have had really changed drastically after the covid pandemic massively influenced their social situations.
Nono. They dont put the warning sign on the website. At least... Tell people that theys researchers might actually not right... But i didnt see any of that sign on site. So u can see they just pride on they own. Its sad to say this but they just trying to manipulate u for no reason . That all.
In fact some of them might looklike purp hair unicorn species tran whatever. They dont deserve respect much. Sorry
I love how you mentioned that mbti is self limiting, I always try to make people understand it
it really isn't. it depends on how much value you attach to it, MBTI is not supposed to be the be all and end all, it is a descriptive model that only says something about ones natural inclinations. Not that a person is excluded from anything else.
Explain how because I really don't get it.
I get what you mean and many people I know who are very much into MBTI say so at one moment, and then they start to argue what type is a character from a game or a movie or anime and they get so wild and they don't even take it as a possibility that a character can display both opposing fuctions, which are not even opposites according to psychology (yes you can have both strong Fe and Fi) @@ZTRCTGuy
If you use it as something that describes you rather than a tool to help you understand someone or yourself then yeah.
I would say facts and observations first then consult with mbti to pinpoint me to the right direction.
My sixth grade teacher made us all take the mbti quiz and that's how she determined our seating arrangments for the rest of the year based on how "compatible" we were
That’s brilliant 😂 making sure to space out the rowdy kids and compose the seating to her liking, while abdicating responsibility to some imaginary outside expertise on personality. I’ll have to do that!
Lmao, did it work?
@@Samuelwastaken Honestly i dont remember too well, but i did really like the people i sat with most the time so maybe it did lol? I do remember how one time during a group project the 4 kids in a group all happened to have the same type and the teacher got weirdly triggered by that saying stuff like "aw great, 4 intjs, just my luck, nothing will ever get done in this group!" and the kids were staring at her like um ok? it was really awkward
Also pretty much over a third of the class had intj and entj which are like the rarest ones? I think it's bc when we took the quiz we just had to report back to the teacher what we got and kids probably just looked up the rarest types to look cool and then told her, so wasn't even that accurate.
And in class us kids made a fake kingdom where our jobs were based on our type and i was the only ISTP, so i can proudly claim i was the 6th grade's token "craftsman" lmao sorry for writing so much
Are there any changes in your classmates' behavior? Like, they could try to fit in the stereotypical description of their type n stuff
bruh, we went through with dis in psychology class, in was for the fun of it and maybe +points
I was chatting with a girl some time ago and she was a lot into astrology. She insisted on knowing which sign I was, so I decided to pull a prank on her: I made her guess, and when she wrongly assumed that I was an Aquarius (I was born in August ) I replied with: "omg how did you know?!". She then started complimenting herself and bragging about her "sixth sense". I had some fun for a moment and then told her the truth. Didn't get a date at the end but it was worth the laugh.
This is what I've joked about doing but I haven't met that many people who've asked me my astrology sign
A good way to test astrology people is to always initially lie and say you were a gemini, I gather that's like the bad one, and see how they react. If they actually change how they treat you they should be avoided, if they just go "neat" and nothing more then they're safe.
@@hedgehog3180No, they aren't safe either way. One is just seemingly less extreme.
@@hedgehog3180 Definitely avoid someone who treats you accordingly to your astrology sign. Run from them.
Well these kinda girls are dumb, and you’re a dick
As someone who just got refused a job due to " having the wrong MBTI type", I have got to say that watching this video was quite cathartic lol
Dang, sorry to hear that man. That hiring practice should be illegal
The actual MBTI actually seriously advises, and I don’t think it even allows employees to hire, or fire individuals on the bases of their personality profile. You can be rest assured that that employer uses the 16 personalities test, which is not the MBTI and inaccurate
@@duncanclarke It is, and if that employer did in fact fire someone due to not having the ‘right’ MBTI type and actually administer the actual MBTI test, the MBTI company can actually sue them. They don’t allow employer to hire and fire on the bases of MBTI type
@@sylviaowega3839 On what legal basis can the MBTI company sue them? They don't own MBTI and cannot regulate its use. Even if they are licensing tests and have terms stating this in the licensing agreement contracts are not in fact strictly binding and it almost certainly wouldn't hold up in court as contracts generally cannot bind signatories outside of the relationship of the contract itself. Same as how Apple might have EULAs forbidding the use of their products for certain things but these have regularly been overturned in court because you cannot limit how a customer uses a product beyond what the law states.
Also lets be honest, what exactly is the sales appeal of MBTI tests other than this? This sounds more like a way for the MBTI company to avoid culpability rather than actual policy. Similar to how companies making lie detectors will always say that you can't use their products to actually determine truth but then will heavily imply it in their marketing, they just make sure to never take the step where they could get sued for financial damages.
However much I think that the cognitive functions make a lot of logical sense, the 16 personalities tests (and especially this practice in employment) is completely asinine and bullshit overall
I've had people insist I take a MBTI test, and then upon seeing my results deciding they don't want to try being friends 😅😅😅
As someone whom is a supporter of the MBTI, I can say it for that very reason that some academics and other individuals have a bad perception of the personality indicator. The purpose behind the MBTI test is to understand yourself and other people better, and not cast some of your friends out just because they have a different MBTI from you.
@@sylviaowega3839 And you don't see how a test which boils down all the infinite variety of humanity into 16 easily digestible stereotypes could somehow lead people to act like this?
@@hedgehog3180The 16 MBTI types are basically templates that are based on preferences; and of which can be clearly seen via via behavioural patterns.
It reminds me a bit of a "Answer these questions about your personality and I will tell you your personality" type of charade, like cold and hot reading by "mediums".
I never really questioned MBTI, tbh and thought it was some surface level psychology stuff. Good to know, and thanks for the vid.
Thanks, man :)
MBTI is far deeper and more accurate than you know.
@@MichaelDamianPHD🥱
Diving face first into the astrology rabbit hole I have come up on the other end having this exact same realization on the use and overall purpose Astrology/MBTI has in relation to defining oneself. It has shown my friends their weaknesses and instead of seeing these things as potholes needing to be filled, they're immovable mountains of personality traits. I've even made the same mistake of letting these interpretations of consistencies in human behavior hold me back and has lead to more confusion than growth. These things have plenty of counterproductive effects as they do the intriguing ones. I still find astrology and spirituality fascinating, not self-defining, but glad to hear my thoughts put into words. Great video.
I'm glad my points resonated with you so deeply. Thanks a lot for that comment. I really appreciate your thoughts :)
@@kolobur298 Best viewpoint
@@kolobur298 literally best way to put it.
I just wish people didn’t treat it like a holy gospel
Yes, even of the 16 personality types are not very accurate, the breakdown of cognitive functions and how people use them can definitely be a powerful tool in many ways.
MBTI is the exact opposite of astrology. It takes already existing characteristics, and labels them. It's based on observation. While astrology is based on pure speculation.
16personalities isn't mbti, it's written in their disclaimer that they only took the names of personality types of real mbti and created another system
edit: 16personalities is based of big five test
A number of people on reddit have pointed this out, and I acknowledge this oversight. But at the same time, I think my points still apply to the "real" mbti.
@@duncanclarke yeah i commented it in your reddit post lol
@@duncanclarke To a certain extent, it depends on what you're trying to predict with MBTI. For me and most others that subscribe to it (and recognise its obvious flaws of black and white thinking), see it as a tool for understanding cognition and how people gather information and make judgements, that's it; There will be correlation with behaviour, for example my type; ENTP is stereotypically a debating jokester of sorts but there is really no prediction in behaviour. Socionics is yet another system and follows the same rules as MBTI (with regards to cognitive functions) but each function is more of an "energy" measuring tool of sorts.
Obviously, there's a great deal of self centred identity seeking in the typology community which is why so many astrologers seek it as another system but the fact remains that most of us just use it as a tool to measure one aspect of a person. Neurotyping charts are another, IQ tests could be considered one, etc...
That makes 16personalities basically more reliable than MBTI because instead of just dichotomous letters, you get percentages which is way more accurate. But most people don't care about the percentages and just go with their four letters... what makes it unreliable again anyway.
@@tetrahexaeder6312 depends on what test you’re taking. Many will quantify how likely you match a certain function.
I'm currently in Intro to Psych in college and I'm doing a whole assignment on MBTI. Including taking the test, reporting the results and how we feel about it. So it didn't come up in your classes, but that's not true to say that no psychologists believe in it. But to be fair, my teacher is not taking it super seriously. Like he's talking about it and wants us to do this, but he sin't presenting this thing as pure facts.
Every time I see someone debunking mbti they never mention the function stacks or build strong enough criticism against jungs hypothesis. They always focus on inconsistent results from the test because sure the questions and calculations are flawed, and people are inclined to be biased and inaccurate in their perceptions of themselves. The hypothesis of Jung and the function stacks that underly each type have way more solid ground to explain characteristics of people, even if it is a bit general. Nobody is a pure introvert or extrovert as jung stated, these are attitudes that should be attributed to perception and decision-making functions. I’m currently pursuing a degree in psychology and I have typed each member in my family and my circle of friends without any of them taking the test. I infer their types based on my understanding of the function stacks, and I’m pretty confident in how accurately I have explained personality to them. I just want to say I don’t think it’s fair to attack the test on this surface level while ignoring the function stacks, and mbti should not be grouped into the same category as horoscopes and astrology.
This is so true. This right here is a copy of that actually f***ing did the research
+1
Isn't it a pretty goddamn big issue for anything claiming to be scientific that it has no predictive power? Like that should be the end of the discussion.
Also are you claiming that you did not know what your family and friends were like before you classified them like this? That you didn't know how they would act and had no ability to predict their behaviors? Because if not then you didn't actually get anything valuable out of your analysis, you just formalized prior knowledge into some fancier language. Also I'd think that trying to diagnose someone without a proper test and their clear consent is a pretty serious case of malpractice but what do I know.
@@hedgehog3180 hm this one of the most stupidest points ever becuase where is it that mbti perduicts the future and shit and this so called prediction you say just seems like it comeds from biases maybe reasch before hand
@hedgehog3180 While I agree with your first point, you should've stopped there. Your second paragraph as a whole is completely wrong and void. They never claimed that they didn't know how their family and friends acted before the classification, In fact they would have to have had a PRETTY GOOD understanding of them in order to type them without a test (using cognitive functions no less). Also, this isn't a virus. Personally, I don't see how typing someone based on the cognitive functions, along with your own observations is malpractice. But what do I know?
This is actually a really underrated video. Very well spoken and informative. Thank you for not making fun of people for believing in MBTI.
He did made fun of it though.
@@andreanegret3942 There's a difference between humor and mocking.
@@andreanegret3942 If you thought that was making fun you're way too sensitive.
As someone who has reads deep into the MBTI and has started to learn about how the Jung's functions theory operate I will say that the comparison with astrology is very missleading.
There is a key difference which is really what makes people dislike astrology over mbti, is the simple fact that in astrology one consults and observes the sky which is clearly not much to do with you as a person while in the mbti at least it is made by some level of observation on the people.
As well as the 16 personality test being actually based on big 5 and not the actual Jung's types, if you wanted a more appropiate test I would recommend the sakinorva one. BUT I will recommend what those more in depth in the mbti community who know well how it works will really tell you, that this is pseudoscience and take all with a grain of salt as well as all tests are going to fail because in reality is impossible to make a test where people get 100% consistent results.
Now about the whole personality thing I feel your whole analysis of the self as something that can change and be molded is something the actual modern mbti does take into account.
The whole system as it's practiced by people now days is like you said rooted on the idea of functions and them having dominants and less dominants ones but is also a lot based on the idea that people need to develop them and that they are more like bases in which one build their self.
Of course I will admit that a lot of alterations and iterations have been made by thousands of people over the mbti and they have developed branches.
Another thing I will add is that calling them "personality types" is a more appropiate way of doing things if you ask me, is basically saying "this isn't YOUR personality but your personality falls into this range"
Also about this whole thing I feel mbti or rather the jung's theory of functions isn't really about what we see as personality now days but rather it talks more about how thoughts flow over peoples head and how they lead to actions being executed.
It talks about how our brain has preferences to wanting to gather information, gaining conclusions of the information, what we value in our actions, or when and how we apply logic, all of that follow by either we do it in more social fashion or more individualistic way.
But all of that by never saying some people prefer x over y but rather what of all the processes of using information we rely more.
Also about how you said mbti is really wrong in 1:20
Specially because the whole letters of the mbti are very dumb at saying how cognitive functions actually work. And the meaning of what they are is also not that close to what one assumes from the names.
Not to correlate mbti and Astrology.. I hopefully don't wanted everyone to underestimated both sides whether they're totally have different agendas or preferences on describing one's individual. Astrology is much more of a oddball system studying through life cycles not just for one's personality, but for events in other aspects that is way beyond logic (birth charts, profections, synastry) and very vague to understand in a scientific way where people see it as a shallow overly bias because of Horoscopes which is mostly intended unto fortune telling business and Pop Astrology. Mbti on the other hand is under Typology, and it has more than one theorized concept like cognitive functions, enneagrams, alignments etc. . I'm way more into self-discoveries so I learned that these two are a never-ending deep lessons to analyze/improve our lives by it's man-made archetypes. Neither one has to be glorified or must've taken seriously to justify how valid it was.
Take that from me having these psychological profile or labels whenever I wanted to be known as myself.
-ISFP 4w5 - 6w5 - 9w1 sx/sp Virgo sun, Scorpio moon, Taurus rising.
Very well worded, 100 percent agree. I've found learning about my own cognitive functions to be massively important as it's allowed me to become aware of my natural tendencies/preferences in how i think and act, and consciously build/work on developing my weaker functions, and its helped me to become a more well rounded person.
As someone who studies both Jung and the MBTI system and has for years I agree. I find there an issue though, the majority of the public tends to rely on pop culture variations of MBTI such as 16 Personalities -> that test and site is trash. The system itself at least according to my perspective is the mechanical makeup and projected biases of the supposed cognitive functions. Example being (NE vs SI). Jung's og functions were based on patterns he observed within the patients he worked with and the symbolism within mythology + religious practices. Even if his theory would hold some truth the scope will still be limited as Jung and Freud both believed the conscious mind was limited and personality is often fabricated and associated via the conscious mind. We as humans are primarily Unconscious and Subsconcious beings, and at least according to Jung that has no type. It simply adapts to it's environment and gives into genetic biases.
Overall, I agree with you. I figured I'd add my two cents. Lemme know what you think :)
Alright, so as people have sorta mentioned in the comments there are some minor inaccuracies. But I haven't seen many people actually talk about Jung's Functions vs MBTI in a way that would make sense from an uninformed perspective.
For context I am a massive skeptic that questions everything, but even I wouldn't say MBTI is as bad as astrology. This is because - yes - the MBTI and 16p tests are trash and inaccurate for most people, but, that doesn't mean good ways of evaluating these types don't exist. They do. And they are reliably more accurate.
Tests like those on Sakinorva are much more accurate because they utilize Jung's functions, and even having knowledge of Jung's functions on an expert level alone is enough to type someone. This is because Jung's "Personality Types" have nothing to do with personality. It's someone's likely patterns of thought, which are observed by what they value in different contexts and state in statements/comments.
These preferred thought patterns are relatively static in people's lifetime and are quite observable.
There are 8 cognitive functions that everyone utilizes, inevitably on this qualitative axis, people will use less of them and rely mostly on just a few. This is the basis of Jung's 'Personality Types' and evaluating someone's train of thought is enough to figure it out with the right know-how.
As an example, if someone frequently leans on how they feel about a subject and uses subjective opinion as a keystone in their statements; you observe "Introverted Feeling". If you frequently observe someone hyping others up and softening their words to avoid hurt feelings, sometimes even at the expense of themselves, that is "Extroverted Feeling".
Someone isn't likely to balance these behaviors perfectly, and thus one will usually win out on average. Those sorts of observations are used to determine type, by examining the functions someone uses most.
Even if the functions are abstractions it doesn't matter, because it undeniably is tracking a greater pattern of someone's thought process that ultimately has some sort of use. It also tells you of likely behavioral patterns. This is infinitely more useful than astrology ever will be, not to mention, knowing the functions you neglect and suck at is also a great key to tangible growth.
That being said it is far from a perfect framework and the human mind is infinitely complex, we pretty much must use abstractions to make any sense of it at anything close to a layman's level.
As a tool, Jung's Cognitive Functions are undoubtedly useful, but getting tested properly and reliably (and being truly educated on these functions) is the rough part. Jung's model doesn't have the same 'neat little bow' presentation style as MBTI, even though the type labels are the same (ex. ENFP, ESFJ, etc.).
Also, each cognitive type has massive common pitfalls and blindspots relative to the type, but MBTI doesn't really like to make mention of it. "Everyone is equal" and all. x.x"
Nice comment. You so eloquently and cohesively summed up my sprawled afterthoughts after watching this video
@@ringstaystingray Glad to hear you enjoyed the comment! Though perhaps I could have figured out a way to be more concise xD
Most people don't seem to realize how memetic the human psyche is in general either; from advertisements to verbal abuse at home or work, archetypes and impressions find ways into our psyche every day.
I think the bottom line is that people don't think abstractions have use-cases but they do, take Liberals vs Conservatives for example.
Demonstrably an abstraction, but it is one used all of the time by laymen and in geopolitical machinations. xD
I appreciate the response and I am glad you found my comment insightful! 😎
"if someone frequently leans on how they feel about a subject and uses subjective opinion as a keystone in their statements; you observe "Introverted Feeling""
I feel like this is the perfect example for why something like the social-cognitive perspective is significantly more reasonable as a basis for concluding statements about patterns of behaviour.
If someone leans more on subjective over objective reasoning for argumentation, isn't this more indicative of how they were raised and what they were exposed to (methodologies of concluding reason) and what was found to be more, on average, socially acceptable within their scope of social influence?
If I'm raised by and taught to think more objectively and given tools to more cohesively and clearly subdivide my thought into buckets of testing which I then allow only the most objective of thoughts to be used in argumentation and dissemination of information through my ability to communicate, will I not then be organised differently?
Another complicated matter ignored here is the fact that "softening your words to hurt another's feelings" for example, is a highly subjective over-generalised statement.
The idea of reducing the emotional impact of your words for someone else is already something that can be shown as non-universal. Take for example the classic notion of a commonly used symbol (one displayed through a social interaction; such as a hand-sign or a collection of symbols such as a word or phrase), and extrapolate it through different cultures. You could argue that if one set of people are less offended by that symbol but another are more offended, then we cannot draw a strong conclusion about the individual who contributed to that response.
It goes significantly deeper than that too, let's say we take the introverted and extroverted statements and view them through the lens of "comfort". How comfortable an individual feels with any set of people will indicate how easily they can communicate themselves with others. The spectrum shifts with context. It isn't just a bi-pole spectrum, it is a contextually-driven spectrum as well. It is also a consequence-driven spectrum, and a trained-response spectrum (think traumas, positive and negative schema, and so on).
These over-simplified reductions of complex behaviour lead toward more often than not, reductions that over-deny the true complexity of these situations and behavioural outcomes in an attempt to assign, categorise, and box people into sets of more easily manageable and judge-able classes of label-based treatment.
@@joshuacadebarber8992
> “If someone leans more on subjective over objective reasoning for argumentation, isn't this more indicative of how they were raised and what they were exposed to (methodologies of concluding reason) and what was found to be more, on average, socially acceptable within their scope of social influence?”
I didn’t quote the cause intentionally, because as far as typology goes… we don’t know the cause. It reads correlative patterns, but we don’t know what the ‘chicken’ or the ‘egg’ is (what comes first). Therefore, typology is classified as unscientific because it lacks enough quantitative study. It is not considered “unscientific” because it is baseless entirely, but because we don’t yet know if the “chicken” or “egg” comes first (or why that might be).
But, I am not arguing for the scientific validity of typology (only it’s subjective usefulness), so in other words I am only arguing for it insofar as a tool for personal understanding and self-improvement; so I don’t feel as if your specific criticism in this case is relevant. It doesn’t seem to argue against a claim I made at all.
> “Another complicated matter ignored here is the fact that ‘softening your words to hurt another's feelings’ for example, is a highly subjective over-generalized statement.”
It is overgeneralized but it’s a post I specifically noted that I created for a layman’s level of understanding of Jung’s typology - and I will admit - it is not the most accurate description of Fe as a function a la Jung.
However, I will say, that Fe’s usage depends on the user’s own subjective viewpoint; so, they would adjust their statements based on their own level of social awareness and comfortability. This would vary between cultures, but I don’t see why the function itself must be “omni-cultural” when it’s use is subjective to the user’s experience and therefore only viewed within the lens of one culture at a time (via that person’s own subjective viewpoint).
Again, I am not arguing factual validity of causation, only the observable validity of correlation; so, a person will likely default to either being more considerate of others and people pleasing for the sake of their social harmony OR they will tend to speak their mind even if it is at the expense of others potentially misunderstanding them. These behaviors are situational, but also mutually exclusive, and someone will tend to do one more than the other in casual interaction.
This difference can be observed and noted over time, and the resulting behavior of preferring one method or the other can be noted; but again the “why” is left up in the air. So thusly, scientific validity is still being tested and is unproven; but again, I am not arguing for Typology’s scientific validity, only its usefulness to individuals as a tool for personal development and it's subjective usefulness as an internally consistent framework of classification/observation.
> On ‘Introversion vs. Extroversion”
It depends on how you determine the definition of these things. Jung characterized introversion as "attitude-type characterized by orientation in life through subjective psychic contents" and extroversion as "an attitude-type characterized by concentration of interest on the external object”. People can obviously vary on this axis but throughout their lives are very likely to default into one category. Again, the “why” is not measured, and I never asserted it ever was. xD
The man seeking enlightenment is seeking an internal goal (introverted goal), the man seeking wealth or influence is seeking an external goal (extroverted goal).
> “These over-simplified reductions of complex behaviour lead toward more often than not, reductions that over-deny the true complexity of these situations and behavioural outcomes in an attempt to assign, categorise, and box people into sets of more easily manageable and judge-able classes of label-based treatment.”
This statement of yours isn’t backed up by a logical assertion, and it doesn’t argue against a logical assertion I made; it’s just a demonstration of how you feel and why you felt the need to comment. And that observation isn’t to insult you, because you seem quite intelligent and I appreciate the feedback, but you’re fundamentally arguing against an assertion I didn’t make - and in fact - that I went out of my way to try to not make. Jung's typology is not scientific. I merely asserted I believe it has value despite it not being scientific.
Jung’s Typology observes one’s patterns of thought, by observing someone’s patterns of action and their method of delineation. The exact issue that renders it “unscientific” is because, again, the origin of all “why’s” are multivariable and currently unfounded. It /can/ at times determine someone’s likely modes of being in a broad manner, by observing their behavior.
It is not - and should not be treated as - a “be all end all” 100% accurate picture of someone’s personality; this is not possible with any personality test and is not my assertion. People who advocate for that viewpoint, are foolish in my opinion; as to my knowledge currently no such perfect personality evaluation system exists.
> Footnote
If I were to try to guess your personality type based on this one comment, I would say, INTJ. One comment usually is not enough to go off of however, and it typically would take cross-examination of many of your posts to get an entirely accurate picture.
You show demonstrable usage of Te (facts-based and context-based thinking) and Ni (quick and decisive intuitive evaluation of context), your motivation(s) are driven via Ni evaluation/judgement and your trigger of motivation-to-action is through an Fi personal feelings-based axis. Assuming your evaluation of my post here is true to your usual/standard methods of analysis; then INTJ is very much likely.
If I can determine this accurately from one comment, it may show a validity in the internal consistency of the system’s own usefulness to an extent. It is a measure of “preferred thought/reasoning patterns”, however, the “why” is the missing piece and you’re right about that. There are numerous possible genetic and environmental factors that may "make someone a type" and that is being studied currently. At the end of the day it is trying to abstract something as mind-bendingly complex as the human brain; for now, I think approximation is the best we can do as a society.
But… I personally think Jung’s Typology has promise, at least as one tool of self-understanding amongst many. The issue is people taking it too seriously, and you are right about that as well. xD
My ‘supposed’ type: INFJ
@@gaving7825 Hey! I love the response. It's a huge surprise and a super welcome one.
I'm INFP haha. I just prefer this style of communication for sharing opinions and discussing things related to more technical aspects of life. :)
For the response itself and the points you bring up, I love the focus on a "tools" based approach. As a mostly pragmatic/utilitarian fan I agree that it has it's usefulness and perhaps less like astrology, exists in a class of more useful predictors and although it lacks a concrete, "this is how", it still has a "we can produce some degree of useful metrics with it".
One point I'd like to quickly make a note about:
> The man seeking enlightenment is seeking an internal goal (introverted goal), the man seeking wealth or influence is seeking an external goal (extroverted goal).
I would like to add a little bit of nuance here, without knowing the reasons for the desire of enlightenment, we can't ascertain whether it's an introverted or extroverted goal. Both goals desire the same thing, "gaining N" where N is something innately correlated to their physical entity. Furthermore, gaining physical wealth vs enlightenment is an interesting abstraction to make. One's degree of enlightenment is also a "wealth" and can be exchanged just as anything else for "wealth". In order to attain "wealth" one might need to achieve a higher extent of "enlightenment". What is the true goal of one seeking enlightenment, and what is the true goal of one seeking wealth? One may require wealth and thus seek it in order to survive in order to achieve further degrees of enlightenment if death will occur sooner due to a lack of wealth. It seems the real point you are making here is whether their focus is on the internal sense of "psyche" vs the external sense of "physicality". Without going into any philosophies, hypotheses, or theories about the state of the mind, whether it's purely physical, metaphysical, both, or alternatively related, I think the postulation is blurred. For example, one might need to attain external things for internal things and vice versa. They are interlinked and impossible coupled. If neurons don't fire we can't see evidence for consciousness for example. So for one to think about "enlightenment", one must keep "the lights on". So external and internal experience an existential breakdown of the barrier erected to separate the two.
Now, in the terms of outgoing behaviour, thrill-seeking behaviours, being inclined to entertain en-mass vs small degrees/groups/an individual directly, definitely using these barriers, and defining them as such can be a useful tool. And I'm all for approximation and possible predictors. My point was moreso a humbling point that we tend to over-use over-simplifications. That might be because they work well. That might be because path of least resistance.
You're 100% right I just wanted to share my thoughts and I really enjoy doing it in a "critique" style! I never meant for my comments to specifically address or target what you meant by what you said, and moreso, fill in some holes I saw myself with my own opinion(s) and viewpoint(s). I find it fun to dream about and explore the landscape around the things people say, and perhaps that's the most INFP thing to do lol
Btw my partner is INTJ ;)
Jung was good at breaking down archetypes and very philosophical. So, I don't think his ideas will be proven with science anytime soon and I don't know that they need to be in order to be valued. The MBTI concept is just building on those archetypes. If nothing else, its good for writing characters. Probably the most value I've gotten from it is better understanding the motivates of others who dont think like me.
I'm not saying this is scientific fact or 100% truth, but every one of those tests I've taken has come out with damn near the same results. 🤷♂️
I’ve never thought of personality’s in a deterministic way. So I though the test giving different answers was just the malleable nature of personality.
While I agree that MBTI is similar to astrology in the sense that it has no actual predictive power and just uses the Barnum effect to reel people in, I strongly disagree that you can say they're the same thing.
1.) MBTI has roots in psychoanalysis while astrology has roots in religion (religions that a lot of people don't believe in).
2.) MBTI categorizes people using tests while astrology categorizes people using time and date of birth.
3.) MBTI has "cognitive functions" (ooh, fancy) while astrology has animals and symbols.
4.) MBTI claims to be scientific while astrology claims to be spiritual.
It's these core differences that make MBTI not only seem more _plausible_ than astrology, but also make it a teensy bit more accurate (although still unscientific).
The fact that some people use it like they use astrology, doesn't mean it is like astrology. You are right about the forer effect though, that's why the test doesn't work for many, what worked for me, was learning about the cognitive functions and analysing myself honestly.
This video really made me think about psychology and immutable attributes. A lot of social sciences use surveys. After pregnancy, a survey is used to determine postpartum symptoms. Psychological evaluations are basically a survey. The results are not considered immutable and are used to find and treat potential issues.
The lack of nuance that MBTI proposes has a superficial pop psychology element to it. However, that doesn't directly translate to Jung's theory not being based on actually observations of existing psychological mechanisms that lead to a diversity of perspectives between individuals. These are observations that many people are making 100 years later, and using as a means of self development. These observations tell of the extremes of a personality, and we of course struggle to find the appropriate nuance of such observations, something you touched on at the end of the video.
Recognizing that perspective, the issue that I take with your video is that you are reasoning abstractly without gathering concrete data to disprove the train of thought. Despite your education, there is an ultimate subjectivity of abstract reasoning that leads to the conclusions reached in the video. There is a style that has been seen time and again, where such abstractness seeks to prove or disprove the existence a framework other people are using. The question that should be asked is what is the utility of the framework, not if other people are wrong for believing in it. This belief that other people's beliefs are irrational is a dangerous psychological mechanism. It distracts from these beliefs being formed out of utility rather than abstract logical thinking. It's also pleasurable for others to see themselves as above or as having superior knowledge. This is one of the biggest reasons that we continue to discount the beliefs of our fellow man.
As someone who has used a Jungian perspective as well as ancient Buddhist philosophy to revitalize how function in the world, I've had to learn from subjective psychanalysis and religious ethos. The two primary takeaways from Buddhism itself: 1) how insignificant I am in a sea of different dimensions and frequencies, and how meaningless my failure or success is in the grand scheme of things 2) that meditation can be used to rewire the brain by bring it back to a state of homeostasis. The stories that religion tells are a deconstruction of what it means to be human inspired by real events that the crafters of these stories witnessed. Astrology can be considered under the same umbrella, where it is simply describing human beings and behaviors in a way that can inspire us. This is where I think your comparison to Astrology is useless.
This abstract logic that dictates if something is false than it is meaningless is not a healthy mindset. The first 3 quarters were subjective and had little to no value. If you wanted to fix this, you should talk to practitioners that are using the system to improve the lives of the clients. The reason that this video makes sense is because it is spoken in a way valued by the culture, and not that the abstractions are concrete connections. Even the mechanism of knowing true or false is broken: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis. Asking if it is true or false is besides the point, and the video would have been much more informative if it spoke of the usefulness of MBTI using the question of it existing or not as evidence to weight if we should take it with a grain of salt. The thesis of the video is not as scientific as it would seem, and you could easily do better.
This is a very thoughtful and interesting comment to receive. It's hard to articulate how valuable I find these comments, and I really applaud how deeply you've engaged with the video.
I appreciate your perspective with respect to the authoratative and "debunking" nature of the video. As I'm a small creator, I find myself searching for clickbait-y and controvertial takes to structure a video around. So naturally, I gravitate towards more shallow theses for my videos. I hope that the video itself did not come off as shallow as the title.
I attempted to be as charitable as I could to MBTI while keeping the video reasonably brief. As you mentioned, I think it's important to recognize the obvious utility that MBTI has to people. But still, I think I attempted to put forward a purely practical case against MBTI. Despite the objectivity issues, I believe that most people who attach themselves to their MBTI type tend to fall into traps where they understand their personality as immovable and concrete "things", which dissuades them from personal growth and development. I think the Buddhist notion of "no self" contradicts this notion of immutable personality, and leads to a kind of liberation from that framework.
I tend to agree with your analysis of Buddhism. I think the values and techniques that this philosophy provides is immensely useful. Even if I took a rigid "debunker" perspective, it's clear from objective studies that meditation rewires the brain and results in improved quality of life. However, I think philosophies and practices like Buddhism are much more valuable than things like astrology, which tend to be more limited in scope and result in more judgement towards other people. But still, I tried to be as charitable to astrology as I could, and described its utility to ancient civilizations.
As I mentioned at the end of the video, I don't think it's fair to say that MBTI is unequivocally "bad" or "stupid". In fact, it can act as a catalyst for introspection (similarly with astrology). The thesis of the video is meant to show that one should simply take these systems with a grain of salt, as you mentioned.
Once again, thanks a lot for this comment, my man. This depth of constructive criticism is hard to come by for a youtuber of my size, so I really appreciate it.
@@duncanclarke I think I will subscribe to you now. lmao
@@Jungslab1312 Thanks dude! I'm glad you're interested in what I'm making :)
This!! This comment is golden and is expertly expressed and shows what the fundamental issue is with the video. Even looking into the astrology section of the video and hearing how he talks about it shows that he doesn't have enough knowledge or experience to discredit it's use.
@@duncanclarke Astrology is not limited in scope. In fact, there is a lot of intricacies to astrology that you don't know about and would if you actually looked into it. Astrology is just as valuable as Buddhism and I don't think the practice of astrology itself should be blamed for the natural inclination of people to stereotype, limit, compartmentalize and criticize others. Please investigate more before having certain claims.
Please read till the end and then judge. The thing is that many people confuse 16 personalities with MBTI. The tests you are talking about in this video are from 16 personalities, not MBTI. (On the other hand the 16 personalities gave us the iconic personas 😁). I started to learn about MBTI few months ago, becouse a friend of mine told me more about it. Until that time I thought MBTI was the same as 16 personalities. The difference is that you can't type someone by his answers. You have to use non-test metods like the observation. ITS ABOUT FINDING COGNITIVE FUNCTIONS. The MBTI also does not specifi who you are, it just tells how you percive and judge the internal and external world (action-reaction as Newton said). It doesn't specifi your interests, your hobby, your opininions, etc. All the types can be gamers, the MBTI just tells how people react to the game. If they use more values or logic. If they prefer to use all of their senses or live in their minds. I agree with many things said in this video, like that it can't define us, but still I couldn't find valid proof that it doesn't work. We should be critical to everything, that's why i clicked this video, but on the other hand its NOT the MBTI and that's why this video can be taken seriosely as an argument against MBTI. The author just talks about something else as many people on the internet (I was one of them few months ago). Still great work with the video, I like your way of critical thinking. You just have to do a better research in MBTI. Hope you will find an argument against it and change my opinion. With regards and wish You luck. 😉
Shortly, you have 4 cognitive functions and all of them are extraverted or introverted. The difference is that you have all 4 funcions, 2 of them are introverted, 2 of them are extroverted and you have them in a order. Also you can get better in all of them, but you prefer using some of them more than others. - - - For example Feeling (values) or Thinking (logic) - Would you do it becouse it make sense or you dont because its not right and you should't. - - - also two people with same MBTI can be different, because it dont deffines opinions etc. More easily said, everyone has its own values or own logic, the MBTI defines which one they will preffer to use.
Exactly. I do think that MBTI can reflect our personality and how we think to an extent. However, it does not 100% define us who we are. We are all uniquely made. You might have an INFP who likes jumping off of cliffs into deep water for thrill and an ESTP who could write a novel alone in their room. Basically what you said
There's no way that a personality test can predict my mind, im basicly impossible for Mbti to get a type and the more I read the less sense it makes
True it's just a little part of our internal software
Yeah for example I’m an INTP that just means I was born with Ti-Ne-Si-Fe but that doesn’t mean I’m gonna hole myself in my room playing video games all day, I could love parties and going out with friends and being a leader and developing my lower functions
An interesting take on the MBTI personality types! Thanks for sharing to inspire my MBTI channel. Randomly discovered your channel through the UA-cam algorithm! 🤟🤟🤟
I had no idea the research behind MBTI was all from the MBTI foundation lol
Psych graduate here.
I think you’re not wholly wrong here in comparing MTBI to Astrology, but I think the comparison is bit disingenuous, and there is quite a bit of misinformation in this video.
There is some Barnum effect present in MTBI, but no where near as much as in Astrology. If you read all the descriptions of the 16 personalities, they are quite different from one another. If the Barnum effect was really at play here, all 16 personalities could have the exact same description and people would be none the wiser.
Also, the MTBI is fairly stable over time. Not 100%, but taking the test a few years apart will often lead to the same result, implying it is in some way measuring something real. Anecdotal, but most people I know who have used MTBI tend to get the same result.
I think the main issue with MTBI is not the test itself, but more how it is perceived by many of its users: an infallible, mystical way to learn deep truths about yourself and others… aka, something like astrology. However, MTBI isn’t supposed to be used like this, but should rather be a kind of very rough, lukewarm measurement of personality.
And lastly, your point on personality being completely changeable and malleable is quite far off modern day Psychology research. The data shows that personality, like many other psychological traits, is quite settled from an early age - seemingly as if it is a from-birth phenomenon. This is not to say there is zero effect of nurture, as your life experiences will definitely help mold your personality, but that starting position will always be there.
idk how did u manage to say MTBI instead of MBTI in your whole comment
@ArtyCharty (by Jack Merlin Bruce)
I completely agree with all of your points, I made a comment getting into a bit of the nitty gritty of it myself, MBTI and Jungian Psychology is certainly measuring .... er, "something" (via cognitive functions) and possibly a whole lot of somethings. It is also relatively stable as you mentioned. I see all kinda of people comparing MBTI to the Barnum Effect and I'm not confident most people actually know what the Barnum Effect does and doesn't pertain to, since I think the comparison is quite inaccurate overall.
It is unscientific in the sense it's an unsolvable "chicken and the egg" problem, and we only see correlation without any actual causation being proven. We don't know what factors make people an "INTJ", "ENFP", etc. But there are measurable differences in people's behaviors and thought patterns when they are grouped this way, and it's shockingly stable assuming they are correctly typed.
Videos like this are startlingly reductionist, honestly. I agree it's unsafe to use these types to stereotype people and it can only be taken as a rough measurement at best, but it's far from useless or mystical from what I understand.
@@wrongin8992 The same way you managed to be a grammar policeman. By writing a comment. B)
@@gaving7825 grammar policeman? it was not an insult to his grammar, i was just curious how did he manage to say MTBI instead of MBTI in his whole comment, like if its only once then i can assume that its a typo, but throughout the whole comment? im just kinda curious whether he thinks that it is actually MTBI instead of MBTI
the 16P test is literally a big 5 test, and (as some people would say) disguised as an mbti test
What these "some people" refer to as mbti, is actually the cognitive functions which give rise to 16 personality types, distinct from the ones in the 16P website test
People in the mbti comnunity only like 16p for their cute characters lmao
Excellent Job Duncan! thank you :))
I agree with this video I would’ve like to hear your take on cognitive functions to since I’ve found those to actually have some weight and slight predictive power but I think the reason I’m getting this predictive power is I mix a lot of these studies and kinda use them as a tool rather than a discipline for example I’d watch people to try to guess there type then enneagram then big 5 and through that process I’d more than likely learn more about them then I would have ever because I’d be look for details rather than tryna take on all that complexity at once which I think is a useful way to approach and use these disciplines to just better understand human beings and help others if really taught me how deep people really go and how to better understand them so I think from that approach it’s a useful tool not a useful discipline or doctrine tho
It's just a test to see what person you are right now. There are just too many open variables, for example, one's life experiences, or the people one hangs out with, or any existing mental disorders that can cause one to click an option that they would not choose if they were cured, to test for one's actual personality.
Astrology - Using your birthday and the sky to determine your personality.
MBTI - Using your personality to determine your personality, and breaking it down into groups. Basically taking your wall of personality and breaking it to the bricks that form it, then organising these bricks.
Not very alike. Saved you 13 minutes.
However, I still believe it isn't great. We all clearly use all the functions constantly and the theory is that we only use, or at least prefer, 4. But it seems pretty obvious to me that your preference can depend on the situation and how you feel, rather than being rigid. Heck, you use all the functions constantly. So, I feel that the functions are valid and someone should work towards improving theirs, but the stacks are more questionable because your personality isn't that stable and unmoving.
So true and you know these people really source their claims and windy these Internet people do it’s like it’s really not it’s actually stealing and that’s not good
MBTI - actually not "Using your personality to determine your personality, and breaking it down into groups. Basically taking your wall of personality and breaking it to the bricks that form it, then organising these bricks."
More so: using a fundamentally flawed system that gets things right more because of chance (as in, the chances that the person that is taking the test is the kind that is usually represented more rightlly than others) and then saying it describes you,
yeah, its not astrollogy, but both have fundamental problems that make it not good to use since in MBTI you cant know if you are the kind of person that is more prone to have acurate results before you take the test
@@marmolejomartinezjoseemili9043 Most people in MBTI communities disagree with taking tests. They can be a decent starting point, but most people encourage learning about the functions and self-reflection.
This is what I get frustrated with when trying to discuss about MBTI and its accuracy. Most of the critique of MBTI come from people looking in not understanding the theory and how it's used. And the people who do actually know about the theory as they've studied it and are likely to be in these online communities don't want to talk about the idea that MBTI might have any flaws whatsoever.
But I will say, yes --- the system is very much flawed, in the way that it puts the personalities into distinct groups. When you actually look at the functions and have studied MBTI long enough, you realise that often you can really relate to some aspects of a function but not relate to other aspects at all. For example, you could say that Extroverted Feeling is made up of multiple characteristics --- empathy, social extroversion, social skills, charisma and interest of group ethics (just from the top of my head, probably even more). What if you relate a lot to empathy and interest in group ethics, but not to the other three?
In addition to this, people's personalities can change. Well, people deep into the theory say that this is simply because we pretend to be types, and pretend to be skilled at characteristics, that we're naturally not, and you should try to find the type which is most natural to you. However, I do believe that, with certain situations and practice, you can change quite a lot. Whether or not your new type is _actually_ your type is debated, fair enough. But I think this needs to be considered when it comes to people trying to type others, at least. If you think someone behaves like an ISTJ continuously, chances are, that's not their natural type. The whole "changing type" situation also means we need to reflect on stereotypes and how they're complete bs --- which they obviously are anyway.
The flaws are simply not what most people are saying --- because those "flaws" are things which only exist for beginner typologists who believe taking loads of random tests is easier than going to the source and studying. Most people in typology spaces HATE 16personalities.
Also, even if you believe the system is flawed (which it is), that doesn't mean what I said was wrong. It's still a system which attempts to take aspects of your personality, break it into chunks, then place you in a group. Saying whether it's flawed or not doesn't change that.
Big surprise, Jungian types and functions have no predictive power because they've never been properly used to make the right types of predictions one would try to predict in empirical models. The descriptive and explanatory power is strong enough you don't explicitly need to do it to realize Jung pointed out something ostensibly true.
You might as well put the entirety of psychology in the same conceptual universe as astrology at this point; I mean for example, where's the evidence that extraversion in the big 5 model even exists? The mere fact that this video is primarily debunking MBTI rather than Jung's hypothesis which is at the core simply demonstrates that you don't really understand it. Yes, MBTI archetypes are mostly irrelevant and untrue, but they're rooted in Jung and thus if you want to try to debunk his hypothesis you should be attacking that. But the point is, because we know that Jung was correct in some capacity it thus means automatically that MBTI HAS to be at the very least partially true and that it is fine to be used in a very basic sense. Astrology isn't rooted in anything true whatsoever, so clearly these fields should not be compared unless the point is that the individual in question is either confused or wants to present their dislike for a system which is disingenuous if you're a serious philosopher or scientist.
Is there a UA-cam video you could recommend that charitably describes the descriptive and explanatory power of Jung? And shows what Jung pointed out that was ostensibly true? I say this as someone who’s not convinced by what I’ve seen of Jung, but it drawn in by the conviction of your statements
@@ToriKo_ Not sure such a youtube video exists, but there's an interview with Jung where he walks through several stories between intuition and sensing: ua-cam.com/video/ve5Pkfe5y8w/v-deo.html
The way you might run this experiment is to identify two groups, one of intuitive and one of sensing. You would then expect the more intuitive people to be able to spot patterns or make predictions of what will be but more likely to miss what is in plain sight, whereas you would expect the more sensory people to spot what is right in front of them but less likely to spot patterns or tell what is going to happen next.
@@ToriKo_ ua-cam.com/video/C5cuKwNJiUs/v-deo.html
if astrology gave specific answers about personality instead of general stuff, most of the times it would be wrong, but there would be, a tiny proportion of the time where, well, it would be right cause like, theres 7 billion people on earth, theres gotta be someone who was born on may who is very introverted and brave or idk, you get the idea, well, here, astrollogy would actually be, correct partially, so if you agree with me that in this hipothetical scenario these things would happen, then you absolutelly have to admit that it being partially true says nothing about a sistem on how reliable it is, if the system isnt made out of something logical, yes, theres some logic in young and MBTI, but its not enough for it to be something we should use or think seriouslly about, its logic that works here, but is broken here, no matter how good some systems in a factory are, if one of them is absolute garbage, the factory doesnt work, if one part of the system is funametally broken, the system as a whole is broken, if we assume that 2 = 1, no matter how much we follow the other axioms of math, we wont get to right results, in that sence it is similar to astrology, and again, that doesnt make it 100% terrible, it just makes it unreliable to the point where we really need to stop using it to think about personalities
God are you suggesting that Psychiatry has had some huge foundational issues of poor scientific rigor and generally unfounded assumptions? Wow what a shock I wonder if such a fundamental defect could lead to a replicability crisis that could cause sweeping fundamental changes in the field and lead it to come to the realization that it needs to entirely overhaul itself? It is almost as if psychiatry spent the majority of its history as a coercive tool of power to impose a hegemonic view of human neurotypes onto society which propped up exploitative systems and caused wide scale suffering as a direct result of its pseudo-scientific basis. Almost as if the field has only recently reformed and started actually helping patients more than it harms them and it continues to be plagued by its earlier mistakes, I wonder if anyone has ever written anything about this, maybe in a book called "Protest Schizophrenia" or something.
Like jesus christ you absolute fucking cretin. If Economy didn't exist then Psychology would be the one stuck with the label of the "Dismal Science", the field has consistently performed poorly and this is in large parts because of its pseudo-scientific roots that it has struggled to weed out and psychologists continue to act like more philosopher than scientist without realizing the limits of philosophy. All of your arguments apply to fucking Miasma theory, please do a tiny bit of thinking. Thankfully Psychology is reforming and has gotten better but that was because of people who looked at quacks like Jung and Freud and went "this is fucking stupid and unscientific and is harming real people". In no other fucking field of science would "you can't dismiss this theory just because it has no predictive power because it occasionally gets something slightly right" be an acceptable reason for adopting a theory. You'd be laughed out of any respectable journal with that kind of attitude, and you wouldn't be able to graduate with a physics, chemistry, biology, medicine or sociology degree with it. Have you ever heard of a p-value? Do you even know anything about statistics and probabilities? Do you even know what a normal distribution is? Do you know how to integrate one?
your videos are so good, very underrated channel
Thanks Greg!
as someone who had studied typology (especially cognitive functions) in the past, there's a difference between mbti and astrology. in mbti, you type yourself whereas your astrology sign types you.
overall i think this is a solid video. i've decided long ago to stop studying socionics, mbti, enneagram, and alike because of its credibility. i moved on to neuroscience and the big five since then.
Well that's because the former is all descriptive/prescriptive mindwandering, a good starting point at best, pure babble at worst. The latter is based on an independently verifiable process with falsifiable claims and modeling.
Yeah, because it’s really just the online test. It’s just ruin everything you know
@@marcomoreno6748 I can’t keep doing this, but it’s like you don’t really social claims
I think that is key to why MBTI is so popular, because it is much more self defined. Most people quickly recognize that astrology is incredibly arbitrary, being simply based on the time of year you were born. MBTI might produce equally unreliable results but is at least less arbitrary and gives the illusion of being based on some knowledge about you. MBTI in that way becomes something you can self identify with, especially since if you don't like your result you can just retry and get one that's better for you. In many ways it's the same as sports teams, what teams people cheer for is often completely random but the important thing is that they did decide for themselves who to cheer for and identify with, and most people are completely aware and even purposefully choose arbitrarily. I mean I literally did that with Rocket League and I still somehow got invested in it and had fun.
@hedgehog3180 that compasrison really is sjut being stupid frankly again its biases whoch shouldn't be in scine
Is the "Forer Effect" is the main or one of tactics used in "Double Speak"?
I can see similarities but I can't put my hands on it!
Can you do a deep video analysis on the Gregorian Calendar please. I think that would be neat and I’m interested in your analysis.
Agreed with everything you said!
I was into MBTI ever since 2020 when I took a personality test, and then learned about the cognitive functions, but then I noticed how ""restrictive"" this personality placement is. It puts you into a box and, especially if you tend to be inclined to neuroticism and anxiety like me, can make you think that your core self(if the self is even a thing), that your core self can never change and that you are stuck the way you are forever. That "you"" can never actually change, you are your type and that's it.
Also, the Fhorer effect is very real in this kind of thing. It shows how pure intellectual especulation without searching for verifiable proof and test can be a danger to psychology and any field that considers itself to be scientific, especially when we deal with human behavior.
(Of course when we talk about philosophy we can't ask for rigorous scientific method to be used, since philosophy, and mathematics for example, are abstract at its core).
For example, of the Fhorer effect, one day I thought I was a high Te user because of descriptions, but also a high Ti user at the same time.
Just because something's not introduced in school does not mean it does not carry weight.
I agree entirely, and part of me actually thinks academia is a bit hard on the psychoanalysts. That claim was more of an observation than a part of my argument.
@@duncanclarke When schools talk about psychoanalysis, for some reason they only talk about Freud. Who everyone hates the ideas of nowadays. The approach has moved far away from him.
Schools are just like "Here's Freud's ideas, haha laugh at them for a bit, now lets talk extensively about all the other approaches". So nobody wants to learn about or talk about psychoanalysis theories, especially not in a fair way.
Also, people talk about psychoanalysis theories being "pseudoscience" then go and praise Maslow's hierarchy of needs although it's just as "unscientific" but it's not psychoanalysis so it's magically alright.
I don't think you need the Forer effect to explain why MBTI types end up seeing very accurate.
The questionaire literally asks stuff like "I prefer being with a small group of close friends over a large group" and "I am often the life of the party" and then the explanation of your type will say that you enjoy solitude or small groups and take a long time to recharge after large gatherings.
It'll ask if you enjoy doing puzzles or riddles, then the explanation will say that your mind enjoys solving problems.
It's like, yeah, I just told you that..
Also, if someone of one type reads the personality of someone of the opposite type(opposite side of the spectrum in all 4 categories), they will not at all think it applies to their life. If you read the description of a type that varies in more than 1 category it very clearly doesn't fit very well.
You could pick 100 random questions about personality, group the answers into categories(via clustering or even literally just playing by ear), you'll end up with different personality groups - because people who answer questions about their personality the same way are likely to have the same personality. It's just a matter of which features(e.g the 4 Jung chose - which he admitted he could've chosen any other of dozens of traits, but thought that these 4 would be most efficient at grouping people in a way that would be useful for a persons analyst to know) you choose to group them based on.
last comment.. The reason results will change over time(according to Jung) is because - as he claims - the core personality is fixed, but different traits may be repressed or suppressed and others inflated for various reasons(usually related to complexes). A person undergoing psychoanalysis(or individuating or "becoming themself" as they age, which is a natural process) would be expected to undergo certain changes in personality over time. A common example is the intuitive function being suppressed in favor of sensing in a person who over-values empiricism and develops a belief that all is just bs left over from evolution that is no longer useful in the modern day
Nice to see Gloria and Carl making the cut 🎥 not sure how I feel about the content associated with the image 🤔
is this like those enneagrams? also one time i took the mpii, i know that's different, but... 1600 questions, the results, i'm irritable, but am i always irritable or just then? they dont know
I’m basically just repeating another dudes comment but jung typology is much more grounded than astrology. The problem lies in the mbti test and how people can interpret it. You can obviously look at someone (or yourself)and in a general sense come to a conclusion on wether or not they are introverted a judger or whatever, but obviously as well this is not a finite judge of their character and can change at any given moment. the fact is you can still be a primarily intuitive senser and knowing this can be beneficial, whether or not this is an aspect of yourself you would want to change or not. A more appropriate title would be “the problem with Myers briggs is people use it in the same way as astrology”. Probably wouldn’t have gotten as many views tho…. I hate that people would be quicker to discredit the whole than to just look at it from a more secular standpoint.
Yeah, I tend to agree with a lot of your points here. It's clear that Jung had a very sophisticated analysis of personality. But as you said, the problem is how 99% of people interpret the buzzfeed-esque 16 personality quiz results. I hope the perspective I communicated in the actual video was more nuanced.
Dr. Liz Greene has written a number of books relating astrology to Jung's typology. Jung believed in astrology.
@@barnowl. This is from Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious:
"Even today, people who still believe in astrology fall almost without exception for t he old superstitious assumption of the influence of the stars. And yet anyone who can calculate a horoscope should know that, since the days of Hipparchus of Alexandria, the spring-point has been fixed at 0 degrees Aries, and that the zodiac on which every horoscope is based is therefore quite arbitrary, the spring-point having gradually advanced, since then, into the first degrees of Pisces, owning to the precession of the equinoxes."
"'The stars of thine own fate lie in thy breast', says Seni to Wallenstein -- a dictum that should satisfy all astrologers if we know even a little about the secrets of the heart."
I think he saw it more as a symbolic influence but not necessarily something real or purely scientific. Just something that can influence people just like any other form of spirituality or religion.
Like looking into a broken mirror when you have never seen yourself... Such experience must be tantalizingly exciting.
Great video. Helped me address a crutch in myself by reflecting on my hypocritical tendency to assume other people’s personalities are rigid, much like MBTI can do, despite the self-reflective work I’ve been doing on myself since having a spiritual awakening which shows me completely otherwise :)
Thanks dude! I think that's something everyone deals with to some extent, and things like MBTI or astrology just exacerbate it.
Maybe a bit less popular than MBTI or ⭐logy, but of a similar value is Tarot reading. Some may take it too literally, but I think many, if not most, experienced readers understand that it provides subject matter for introspection, not ironclad diagnoses or predictions. Part of the advantage is that, unlike the two systems you compare here, each card or configuration is explicitly metaphorical, and also has a multiplicity of details, tangents. and alternative commentaries over a variety of different manuals. This allows a sensible and creative reader to present interpretations that simply open up suggestions for contemplation.
(I'm not a reader myself, but I've submitted to a few readings from friends, which I don't take as definitive, but as potentially interesting food for thought. I don't think the readers are ever offended.)
Thankyou for putting it up here !!
Mbti makes more sense. Unlike Astrology when it's like "youre born in this date, so you act like this"
Interesting, you've earned yourself a new subscriber
Thanks man!
Same!!!
What are your thoughts on Dr. Dario Nardi's work? He's a neuroscientist who pretty proved the cognitive function model to be true.
Oh? I'd like to see this. Do you have any links by any chance?
As everybody would theoretically be entitled to their own personality type, personality categorisation and typology can only be so accurate and thus be taken only so seriously. MBTI definitely isn't as unsupported as astrology, but also shouldn't be taken as the be-all end-all. I like MBTI and have found great accuracy in it - but only really for those who are more extreme in the qualities of extroversion, intuition etc - not really for myself however (indicating the Barnum effect wouldn't really apply here). Personality testing can be a good starting point for identifying and describing characteristics about oneself where we may have struggled to find the correct words for someones particular mannerisms. While academics may not recognise it for its validity, MBTI is surely a decent foundation for understanding personalities and the self.
What are your thoughts on personality disorders?
Question did Jung come up with the Cognitive and shadow functions or not.
Oh yeah, he did though. Yes, his wife and his daughter helped but it’s really his ideas.
Having been through the MBTI certification (back before it was sold to it's current owners) and helped over 750 people complete it, I'd argue that it has value in some cases. I think you mention it briefly in your conclusion, but I use it as a way to do some self reflection and also to understand how understanding people's preferences can help you better connect with them. It's certainly not science. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have value to the person who wants to understand personality preferences. I'm also a retired HR professional and have never relied on type as a decision point in hiring/promoting people. It is NOT an indication of success in any manor.
Can you please make a video about your under grad thesis, (or free will). I would love to hear your position on either.
I fully agree with you. Most people treat it too seriously and thus are limited by it. We are way more complex than that. Functions we prioritize can change with time and we are not either that or that
I enjoy MBTI because it's a stereotyping behaviours into boxes and jokes on stereotypes are generally quite hilarious. So jokes on MBTI types are really interesting.
One difference I'd say between mbti and astrology is that MBTI atleast to me never seemed to be predictive it always like a descriptive analysis rather than a predictive model.
This is pretty fair. Pointing out the scientific flaws and the lack of back up to these claims is certainly something that many people need to hear about the MBTI.
And even with that knowledge i believe this is by far not as unfounded as astrology, or the political compass.
My point is the following: We use objective tools to set up, proof and make objective claims about the world. How come we also assume thats efficient with subjective topics? How come we want objective tools for SUBJECTIVE experiences such as personality? What makes us think its as useful here as it is there? Im telling you what, nothing. We just assume thats the case because science and objectivity brought us where we are now. We should really be careful about that, because we actually have little evidence thats useful.
And the next, and probably more important one is this: The MBTI wasnt made to make objective statements about a person. It was made to make a statement about a persons personality FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE. What that means is that your own personality is X lets say. Now because we are human we cant see X, we can only see X - Y. What i mean by that is that we cant observe everything thats there, but just what our mind and body allow us to. You know the gorilla costume basketball study right? Thats that.
So to summ it up, if we wanted to make a claim what X is, your would be right, but thats not what it does, it only shows X-Y. Or in words, it shows a personality through the lense of our subjective experience. Our biases, our likes/dislikes, our worldview. So if X is your personality, and Y is your "filter", and Z is an other persons personality, that means that if YOU wanna know their personality, you are forced to see Z-Y. And the other way arround your personality experienced by another human wont be X, it wont even be X-Y, it will be X-A(their subjective experience). Thats what the MBTI does. It caculates the person thats doing the categorizing into the equation.
Well your mistake is in assuming that science is objective. It is not and has never claimed to be, it is just as subjective as anything else. Science is just a method that lets us sort through all of our collective subjective experience and then come up with the best theory for explaining why something happens and predicting what will happen in the future. The brilliance of science is not that it can discover capital T truth, it is that it is able to methodically narrow in on the most accurate and useful way to understand something and use that understanding to gain useful knowledge about the world, such as predicting future events or understanding what action you should take in a certain situation.
Objectivity is impossible due to the simple fact that we are all subjectively experiencing the world, the fact that we are subjects, individuals experiencing the world, makes it impossible for us to never not be subjective. What is in layman's terms called objectivity is often more like "consensus reality".
Though I do sorta get your point but the argument you're making, seemingly unknowingly, is that MBTI is like literary analysis. Not a tool for discovering or discerning truth but a model you can choose to apply because you might be able to find what you consider a useful or interesting insight from it. If you purely use it like that then that is fine, but you then need to remember that just like literary analysis you are not discovering a static unchanging truth, you're merely choosing a lens. There is no correct interpretation of a piece of literature, only ones that are more well supported by textual evidence. Also not all models used in literary analysis are always equally valid, it wouldn't make sense to analyze a novel by looking at rhymes, so you should also recognize that sometimes MBTI is not fit for purpose in many situations.
I do not follow your explanation of how MBTI is supposed to work. You don't define what any of the variables used are nor what the - notation means, and you clearly don't use it as a minus sign. At best it seems like a roundabout way of saying "your perception of other people will be colored by your own personality", which is true but I don't see why that's an insight that matters? Did we need personality tests to understand a commonly understood facet of life?
I just think being an INTP is cool.
Also, astrology is stupid because birthdays don't change your personality. MBTI is at least based on what you choose in personality tests. But you're right; it doesn't define your personality.
Because it's fluid, and does change over time, relatively stable because isn't a drastic change, but it does
@@retzen2989 Yeah, the makers of MBTI thought people were born with the types they have now, but still.
I once took Clifton Strengths Analysis and one of it claims is that the list of top tens strengths that you'll get after taking its very long test tends not to change in the lifetime. I haven't really checked it's veracity. I'm not sure if you're aware of it.
11:16: The example people we can see for the 16 Personalities have these listed as what they do / are: Mediator. Advocate. Entrepreneur, Debater, Campaigner (2 people) Protagonist (!, 2 people). Those all sound like the equate to "unemployable but work 4 or 5 hours a week at some hustle / scam." I assume the one who lists himself as Logician is the person administering the tests.
What's best for infp
Lincoln was self taught: 👏
These ladies were self taught: 😲
Ive seen most questionares as just a test. How do you know i didnt fail if theres no wrong answers.
People always confuse the Zodiac and the horoscope, and completely dismiss the Zodiac arguing that the horoscopes are wrong
Screw MBTI, all my homies discuss their BDSM test results
I knew it!!! thanks for the video, very helpful.
I want to know your opinion on enneagram e.g. how accurate is it?
That’s astrology anagram is very much astrology. Yeah that’s a hot take but it is astrology.
ok. but this video says nothing about typology itself but only the test
Tests such as MBTI assess factors which depend upon the situation. For example, you may be a quiet, rather shy introvert most of the time. But if you are in a situation where you know what to do (based upon education or experience), while those around you don't, then you may have to become more of an extrovert, and take charge. On the other hand, in a new, strange, unfamiliar situation, where you're the "new kid on the block," you could be completely passive, just taking it all in. I've been in both situations.
As a fellow philosopher I agree Mbti and psychoanalysis in general is more of a metaphysical issue than a scientific one and so the criticisms of the verifiability of the claims is valid if objectively verifiable data is all you care about.
however I would like to point out a distinct difference in the application of the Forer effect between MBTI and Horoscopes
To understand why the forer effect isn’t as big a deal for mbti as it is for horroscopes we first need to understand the real difference between subjective and objective claims and it is not simply a matter of opinion vs fact, as a matter of fact there can be subjective claims that are true and objective claims that are false and vise versa. you can have facts that are subjective and opinions that are objective in nature and vise versa.
The real difference between subjective and objective is not “true or false” nor is it “opinion vs fact” it is wether the truth of a claim is based on the “subject or the object”. In other words if the truth of a claim is dependent upon the mental state or mental process of an individual to be true then it is subjective, but if its truth is dependent upon something external to any individual something independent of how any one or more people perceive it, then it is objective.
For example if I said you were a pink and purple striped Giraffe that’s not a claim that’s true but we must ask ourselves why its not true? Is it dependent upon how we perceive it to be or is it dependent upon something outside of our perception? In this case it is dependent upon wether or not you actually are a pink and purple stripped giraffe so it would be dependent upon something outside of ourselves and would therefore be an objective claim however it would be objectively false.
It is objective but non factual
Likewise a statement like “I feel misunderstood” would be true if and only if I actually did feel misunderstood it’s dependent upon my mental perceptions and state of being therefore it would be subjectively true. And it wouldn’t be a simple matter of opinion either, you couldn’t tell me “you don’t really feel misunderstood” and just agree to disagree, one of us would be factually true and the other would be factually false. And since it’s dependent upon my own perceptions the truth is that if I actually do feel misunderstood I would be telling the truth and the opposite claim would be false.
Subjectively true vs subjectively false.
Now with this established we can see what the real issue is between horroscopes, MBTI, and the forer effect.
Horoscopes attempt to make personality a matter of objectivity in a rather arbitrary way and they manipulate the forer effect to make it appear credible. Think about it this way horoscopes will say if you’re born in September you’re a Virgo and that’s why you have certain traits of personality and certain preferences, it’s asserting that something independent of perception is responsible for your personality traits. Sure it may be objectively true that I’m a Virgo if im born in September as its defined by horoscopes but it’s objectively false that all people born in September have those same personality traits which have absolutely no causal link to celestial bodies. And the forer effect here is attempting to justify a claim that is objectively false.
However with the Myers Briggs it operates as more of a survey, asking people how they feel and how they would approach situations, the Myers Briggs measures the subjective environment of an individual and so long as the individual isn’t lying or misunderstanding the questions, the test actually does form an accurate profile of a person’s subjective truth in regards to their personality more often than not. Yes the subjective state of being can change but that doesn’t mean the results of the test should be thrown out rather it gives us more opportunity to question what the true nature of personality is and delve deeper into metaphysical examination. And the forer effect here is also less of an issue because if people are saying they feel those things are true for themselves because they actually do feel those things are true for themselves and not because of some objectively false claim then its just a simple subjective truth.
See the real issue is inflating the importance of the objective and devaluating the importance of the subjective. If you approach it from an assessment of subjective truth there’s no issue at all because personality by its very nature is a subjective issue. Tests like the big 5 are useful for objective measurements however I don’t think they’re measuring personality rather they might more likely measure behavior patterns instead of the actual underlying thoughts and feelings and motivations that drive those behaviors like the Myers Briggs attempts to do.
I did the test 7 times in a timespan of 5 years and I had the same personality every time. And when I read other personalitys traits, I don't recognize myself nearly as much as I do when reading the traits of my own personality.
I agree that people are taking it way to seriously but saying that mbti is like asking the stars if you will find I girlfriend next year is absolute nonsense.
Mbti uses real personality traits in which people get categorized in. You can't tell me that saying someone is introverted vs extroverted is the same as saying someone is a virgo vs taurus.
I don't know, I'm aware that mbti is not backed by scientific evidence but from my own experience I can say that my type describes general aspects of my personality really well, it is obviously very difficult to make specific observations or predictions through a test but I would say that it is incredibly accurate for what it is. Each personality type describes general aspects of it but there are clear differences between them.
Thank you for this video because i always thought that the MBTI test was accurate.
2:29 PSYCHOANALYSIS showing Gloria & Albert Ellis. Perfect.
I made MBTI tests in 4 different times since 2017. It is totally consistent on my personality type.
that doesnt mean anything, learn cognitive functions
It’s possible; I’ve taken online versions of MBTI and several online cognitive function tests and still ended up with the same type. But yeah, try the cognitive function tests as they will give you a better idea. There are several free online versions.
What of socionics or the big five?(these seem to be more scientific).
It has the same tyoes of questions as every other personality test. The only thing that is in question is how the statistics are collected and analyzed.
I took the MBT upon entering the military in 1983 and again after retiring from the military in 2008. I scored INTJ on both tests.
Im INTJ too!
So?
So are other millions of people around the world.
Based on this test you should have millions of copies around the world. But you don't. You're one of the kind
Dividing all of the humanity in 16 types is pseudoscience
@laniakeas92
Every type is on a spectrum. It just means that we center around particular personality traits.
I don't think I have ever gotten the same result twice, even when taking the test mere hours apart.
My condolences
I've been using it to figure out how to handle other people to get on there good side.
When we took this test for fun in high school, I scored one point more toward E rather than I, and that right there made me suspicious. Suddenly, based on an edge case of how I hewed on some hard-to-answer questions, I could be forever labeled as outgoing adventurer, or a loner shut-in. Naw. I'll pass, and rightly judge people who label others so easily. Is that a Scorpio thing?
How could you know the self is an illusion itself if it is what is subject to illusion?
I'm curious of what you think about socionics
Thank for properly accrediting Jung in relation to these theories
our "self" is just the combination of biochemical and biophysical processes happening in our neural system
16 personalities isn't MBTI, comparing astrology to a type indicator based on Carl Jung's work, which is also the most famous typology right now, is kind of questionable.
Thank you! The first time I took the test I could not stop thinking „this feels like a horoscope“. In the end I simply stopped thinking about it because I was duped by the perceived validity of the whole thing. Good to know I‘m an intuitive kinda person 😏
Honestly my results changed often and varied a lot when i took the test. It definitely limited who you were. However these tests are silly and just for fun as I see it, not a hard on this is you picture.
We took a test like this in my Psychology class during highschool and we used 3 different websites. All had different results. It was a fun assignment but not a reliable one is what we learned.
Since I recently discovered MBTI, I've always been thinking it's mostly standing for adults, while children still developing neurons doesn't seem stable enough to conclude anything (if we can ever try to make conclusion). It has its holes, but it seems obvious that it shouldn't be supposed to represent 100% of any person's behavior.
Like the Pirate Code it's more a sort of guide, which helps to put words on what you feel, and find on which point we should work to complete our personal flaws, and not rest on them (or at least find the passion we're living for). Like in RPG, we have initial score, but it's hardly representative of the dozens of levels and chosens skills we will add on each of those statistics over time.
And it's already WAY precise enough compared to pure hasard that is astrology (besides maybe the fact you're born in certain weather that could physically influence in some way, I don't know, but that's the only tangible thing). After all, if the Big Five looks like something, it's precisely MBTI, with was like the necessary intuitive analysis revealing to light what accurate science could be build behind.
I looked at many descriptions and the most niche memes, and I can't but just agree to every single INTP thing, and even when I feel I'm also part INFP, I see that INTP also tends to think they're INFP. x)
For me, personality has always been directed by how you grew up, but in some parts I can't really put words on, like how violent you are, tending to be a criminal, or of course knowledge and manners, tastes, sensibilities, sexuality, etc. ; all that is not supposed to be predicted, or way it's way more complex than what we're talking about, and so just has to stay out of our present considerations, for the good.
But then there's the rest. It's really flagrants how some babies can show strong personalities from the very first day that will follow them to the rest of their life, how they express their feelings, etc. independant from any relation, before any kind of trauma that could repress their initial instinct... Well, except the 9 or 6 month exposed to exterior vibrations, sounds and lighting, but is so random... well, drugs or alcohool consuption are more significant.
MBTI mostly shows a quite valid great pattern ; I like how each category can have always more precisions, each 4 scales can be analyzed independantly with percentages. But for example when I read the simple S description I felt it could fit me, but in the tests I understood I liked way more what N represents, so the test is very important. And there also often actually 2 sorts of people in each, so more than 32... (but in fact at this point it's seems really depending on one's mood)
It also opened me on differences from people, why others don't understand me, and why I'm struggling so much to understand their emotions, while being still particularly attached to humanity. Now I feel I can finally grasp the reasons of why we're so different, but also find how to pass through those barrers and still live together, thanks to this knowledge.
It's xactly the reverse of school trying to taught the same everything to every people, we know it definitely can't work fine on everyone, for no apparent reason. And I precise it doesn't mean we should separate every type, but the reverse, make every one exists with their strenghts, while helping others on their flaws. (even if I personally would just be let alone lol)
I also find MBTI very interesting to create fictionnal characters. To have a clear definition of their global personality, especially when you're trying to think at the total opposite from your own personality; an interesting but quite hard excercise. It seems like a very convenient guide to help guess better how they're gonna react to events while staying coherent with themselves and their instinctive choices and actions.
Or in reverse, an help to locate for which specific reasons exceptions are occuring, like in real life. With of course the randomness of context always playing part in the course of events... Well, except in books.
Sorry I really write like an INTP lol, thanks to informatic I can take the time to make a nice text but in the same I can't remove too much words or it will be even harder to read.
Honestly, I love reading all that. I'm an INFJ. I have always been struggling to know where I am in a social situation, somehow I don't even know if I know myself well and after finding out my MBTI, I feel like I now have at least a little grasp of what might happen to me all this time.
I'm well aware this is pseudoscience. But this has helped me at make things make sense for me. And I do love trying to guess people's MBTI as a hobby lol. But I don't think we are limited to the traits our MBTIs have. But overall, it had helped me gain friends and have fun talks with people who shares the same interest. Also researching about it is pretty fun and not to mention the skits I've seen online LOL.
Well said
@@loocydity6119 I dug way more in the subject: it's freaking solid.
First, psychology can never be science, or only in a really generalist. Because it would be hoping all people will always act logically to fit the theory. That's just sounds wrong; there are way too much parameters... Yet our brains are wired in a way or another, and has to prioritize things, how to look, judge... That's CPT.
I found put the perfect UA-cam channel, simply called "Cognitive Personality Theory". That guy will just explain you everything about your - maybe - Ni Fe Ti Se.
I tried to find an intuitive way of formulating the loops in a nutshell: By instinct, INFJ is an active Visionary-Analyst and passive Harmonizer-Practical, so, insight->reason & empathy->senses. (that mean way more than it says but I forgot the details lol) You may worry about novelty/exploration, criticize identity/values, find memory/stability cursed and struggle to even figure out structuring/process/results. (hard to find a single accurate word) Of course, it's from basis, before outgrowth.
Does that work? For my Ti-Ne-Si-Fe/Te-Ni-Se-Fi it works so well it's scary. I prefer to isolate the cognitive functions to really understand their priorities and interactions, in order to be even more accurate than that most tests. Because it's not about who we are, but how our instinct leans. The best remains a true specialist, who I think CPT channel is. (I think he said he's INFJ too, but would type ESFJ differently because of how much he worked on his Te or something like that)
Also I think the rule number one with MBTI is to never trust what we think we understood. I tried to apply this on fictional characters, like on Personality-Database, reddit... My hopes of understanding has been crushed a few times already, after I've been convinced by very argumented analysis, saying literally opposite things. (... By the way, do you find Nico Robin relatable ? xD )
Generally, we have no idea how much wrong things are said across the internet, hence the almost astrology-tier opinions. But it's still science-based because of how close it is to the Big Five, the statistics, the brain imagery... Science is not about truth, it's about questioning, failing, and perpetually improving the imperfect. We'll always be biased, but we can at least aknowledge it, it's all about point of view.
(Astrology is shit, yet someone born in january will have way more chance to become an athlete, because of all his childhood experiences having this big physical advantage of a few extra month)
@@loocydity6119 ... I did not send a link but did my second novel have just been deleted ? :'(
@@loocydity6119 I'm a bit pissed off so I can barely write anymore lol.
You can directly watch CPT about INFJ, and his theory explanation playlist to really understand all the terms.
I also liked how he addressed flawed opinions on MBTI (from both sides).
Some people really will profile your entire personality based on stars and then get mad when you say there are average differences between the sexes and ethnicities.
While it is right that some kinds MBTI isn't reliable and valid, some are, there's some truth in it because it mirrors facets of the big five and the big five is based on factor analysis and it can actually predict people's behavior. And you can benefit for using it (especially with "cognitive functions"). The dichotomies is very unreliable, but the cognitive functions are more reliable.
But realize that there are many types of mbti, some are the ones that stick to the cognitive functions' original definition only (no modern revisions/correlations like Te isn't connected to activity and achievement seeking but that it's "objective logic"), some doesn't use cognitive functions and some see the pattern of who usually get a function high in a test and type them based on their behavior.
The last one is the most reliable and valid even though it's still very unscientific and unreliable, because they collectively see the pattern of what this actually is than just a person saying stuff which can be different than what we see and feel, which is similar to the big five but much more incomplete but more percise.
Jung is wrong to say that personality can't be changed, just because he is the inventor/creator of personality types doesn't make it true/felt irl
The one critic of the big five is the why's and the details. It's a very very good model of personality because it's more complete bet it's missing some details that is very apparent in some people but not on others because it's just based on correlation instead of theories. But it's imo better thes way because I think that the theory should be based on our understanding of psychology and logic instead of just personality theories because we know that in reality, it's neurological
Woah, I just watched more parts of this video and I just realized you and I are on the same page, you just are not interested in MBTI enough to see its hidden Big Five lol
What do think about Belbin?
Our whole personality has many layers :
_Our "MBTI" is our core functioning, our base type, our 8 cognitives functions, how our brain is wired and process informations.
_Our subtypes, including our learning style and our memory.
_Neurological conditions
_Enneagram & tritype, layer a little more in surface which shape/modify the core in part
_Human Design
_Astrology
_Numerology
_...An probably others knowledge I didn't discover yet.
_A part of mystery
All of that are connected in part, in way or another, and help so much to avoid stress, depression, resolve traumas, take better decisions, be more aligned with our authentic self, to improve ourselves, integrate all the parts of ourselves, all of them are valid.
It's just people don't want to learn them or are afraid to know themselves in depth.
6:21 that’s a very Eurocentric argument against why non-western regions turned towards astrology for cosmological and metaphysical meaning.
"UNDERRATED CHANNEL" Thanks Reddit for this gem !
Thanks dude!
Astrology is the hypothesis that significant human cycles occur aligned with the almanac, and that certain kinds of parents tend to reproduce with certain almanac-aligned stimuli and considerations, and that correlations between parents and these stimuli, correlates with certain trends in their offspring and their annual birth phase. The movements and positions of celestial objects are a proxy for a clock by which they tracked the almanac, and broad trends in human mating and offspring. Jungian archetypes hypothesizes that all people have limited cognitive resources that need to cover a set range of cognitive tasks; and that the allocation/specialization of these cognitive resources at the top level is between input or output (observing or deciding), and the relationships between data points in either case is ultimately the consideration of parts as the parts of a group, or as the parts of an individual (extroversion or introversion). MBTI is then the further hypothesis that some of these cognitive functions are more sophisticated than their synergistic counterparts, and thus we lean into them more and they become more mature, while the offsetting cognitive functions will be subordinate.
You hear what you want or what you think you recognize about yourself. The use of labels is for others, not for the one they are being ascribed to.
Interesting how you use a rainy day and a sunny day as an example to generate different MBTI results. Because astrology is tied to the seasons (less sun, more sun; less food, more food) which is how astrology derives meaning from the signs.
In the case of our identities shifting with time: Is a tree still a seed? Can a seed stay a seed? Can a tree grow without a seed? I think it’s silly to assume we know the answer to any of these questions unless we’re the tree experiencing it
I admire your work Duncan but you should have done your homework for this one :/
16 Personalities (the pop culture MBTI everyone and their mom uses) isn't MBTI; it's inspired by the Big 5 Test which is ironically accepted.
You did get the Jungian aspect correct, with the Rational functions (Feeling (values) and Thinking (Logic) biases and the Perception ones (Intuition and Sensing).
What was missing though was the mechanical understanding and organization of the "personality" structures.
This is something 16 Personalities doesn't mention or even acknowledge. It takes the theory and generalizes it into this easily digestable but incorrect version of itself.
If this video was labelled 16 Personalities is Basically Astrology then I'm sure a lot of the comments providing rebuttles and criticisms to your video would be halved as a majority of them seem to be pointing how bullshit 16 Personalities is.
The system doesn't just = type and here's a fancy description of generalized traits.
The actual system consists of a hierarchy of "cognitive function" patterns we have a bias towards in our everyday lives.
We use all 8 of those functions in various combinations. I say 8 because those "4" main functions are broken into Introverted versions (thoughts, ideas, introspection) and Extroverted versions (External observation, stimuli, detached analysis or "objective" analysis if you're feeling dramatic).
It's not a fixed prediction system like astrology (which I also ironically studied before moving onto Jungs Cognative Functions).
Determinism isn't the core of MBTI like it is with Astrology who believe the stars have decided who they are going to be.
MBTI more of a faulty system based on human observation of pattern biases and trying to organize it into a hierarchical structure that tries to make sense of it all. The hierarchical structure itself works on opposing forces (cognitive functions) -> Example being ENTP (NE-Ti-FE-SI) -> NE = the opposing force and opposite of SI while TI = the opposing force of FE.
All typings have opposing forces that face them. For example, if you are resistant to cold like a bear you'll also have a vulnerablity towards heat -> the functions work in a similar fashion, but trade out weakness with less awareness. If you lead with Extroverted Thinking (TE) for example your less "conscious" function will be Introverted Feeling (FI) somewhat blinding you to your own values or in unhealthy cases making your values seem like the superior ones.
Hopefully, this explanation helped clear up some misunderstandngs
Yes, I have to agree with you here 💯. Duncan is brilliant when it comes to his interpretations of philosophy, but certainly has not done so with the MBTI. The MBTI and the Big Five model are very consistent with each other, but certainly not the free online 16 Personalities test in which he frequently sites.
Yeah. Mbti is too basic for the complex human mind. It sounds nice, but it's way too restricted. I just categorize people based on their behavior. There are jerks and people who aren't jerks. No mbti test needed to tell the difference
I like watching mbti videos for fun. My personality types doesn’t match me but I don’t really care.
search this video "Carl Jung on His Own Psychological Type [MBTI, Socionics, Etc.]" you will hear jung believes type changes.