Whats your type?
How much stock do you put in it?
I'm a weird mix of ENFP, INFP and INFJ
ENTP boyfriend, can confirm lol, stabs as warning
Whats your type?
How much stock do you put in it?
I'm a weird mix of ENFP, INFP and INFJ
ENTP boyfriend, can confirm lol, stabs as warning
INTJ.
I think Myers Briggs is horoscope for people with a college degree. It's fun to read about, but I don't take any of this shit more seriously than being a Gemini.
>tfw would stab without warning
I guess so, kek. I'd only stab as retaliation for something, but I'd wait until they didn't expect it.
It’s interesting to think about, but it had always felt fleeting meaningless.
I used to be an infp when i was young stupid and a pushover.
Now I'm a estj and run my life not giving a single shit what anyone thinks.
I actually get into astrology tho
Not just your sun sign, it gets much more complicated than that
lol
what type are you?
Is there actually any scientific significance to MBTI? I've always had the impression that it's just some kind of zodiac for zoomers.
The only type that wouldn't stab anyone would be the INFP. An INFP wouldn't stab anyone unless they were absolutely psychologically or physically violated by another person.
>Not just your sun sign, it gets much more complicated than that
I mean I got my chart done and everything.
It's fun to do, I'll try everything out of curiosity, but it's completely meaningless and doesn't say anything about me. Neither astrology or Myers - Briggs.
Restless, distracted, two-faced, judgmental, depressed, overwhelmed
I'll give you a hint: I'm not a filthy fucking extrovert.
MBTI is based off Jungian psychology and his empirical observation of personality archetypes as an observable phenomena.
ESTJ I keep a loaded handgun in my glovebox.
Another ESTJ reporting in. I have not one, but 2 metal pipes in the trunk of my car to bludgeon someone with.
No. All scientific research on the topic suggests that it isn't an accurate tool and shouldn't be valued as more than a Buzzfeed test about which character from friends you are.
I'm a Monica by the way.
recruiter.com
indiana.edu
ENFP REPORTING IN
EVERYONE'S AWAY AND I CAN'T SLEEP FUCK
My extremely abusive narc mum was an ESTJ
My equally abusive, but later redeemed brother was ENTJ
Yall make me nervous as hell
>and shouldn't be valued as more than a Buzzfeed test about which character from friends you are.
This. However it doesn't make it any less fun.
You’ve got style, my friend.
lol sup
OP here
Primarily ENFP, i think, but also been typed as INFJ
I agree, it is a pretty fun thing to read about.
I just am baffled when people take it seriously as if it was actually telling something about you as a person.
Not very accurate, I'm sorry.
People are stupid what else is new? Fuck em' and focus on yourself. I'm practicing doing this for my own quality of life.
Hey thanks user.
Personality archetypes exist and are observable, whether or not MBTI implements the theory well or not is up to interpretation. Science fails in the realm of the mind because you cannot cut a personality into tiny bits to see what it's made of; therefore the scientific method will always fail past the observation stage in the psychological realm.
>Personality archetypes exist and are observable
Not really. Jung's ideas on archetypes is deemed as pseudoscientific and aren't viewed as accurate by modern psychology.
>whether or not MBTI implements the theory well or not is up to interpretation
It's not. There's plenty of scientific data that shows it's not an accurate test.
>Science fails in the realm of the mind because you cannot cut a personality into tiny bits to see what it's made of;
This isn't true. While psychology is soft science, it is a scientific subject and saying it isn't undermines a lot of its credibility.
There's plenty of more accurate psychological tests. Defining your personality with 4 letters is fun, and easy, but not an accurate representation of who you are as a person or a useful tool.
>would never stab anyone
I'm glad that's what you believe
What are u?
you're retarded you can't be a mix jfc kill yourself PLEASE
Entj here
Would stab someone, but a fuckload of thought and calculation would go into it before doing it to ensure an ideal outcome.
No on the spot impulsive shit, everything has its place.
>expecting me to give away my secrets
yeah what I thought. stab without warning
Same as astrology really, can be fun but never take it too seriously.
I'm INFP and everything hurts.
>a weird mix of
Yah, retard, the test isn't accurate so you can get different results.
Ever heard of OCEAN faggot?
is where these shit threads belong, you're not asking for advice, giving ir or ranting.
INTJ.
While it isn't entirely accurate, people don't give it enough credit. This is because they view it as a collection of traits rather than a way of thinking that typically leads to the development of those traits.
As an INTJ I would have to agree.
INTP fucking useless without higher education. Currently working as an instructor at a karting track so thats fun exept for occasional idiots. Hope my econ degree wont be the end of me.
Meyers Briggs is actually the best out of all of these personality tests because you can more easily find people with the same combos and get solid advice.
It's consistent, I'll give it that. But like said. It's horoscopes for the educated. Humans are too complex and multivariabled and dynamic to be put into boxes like this.
Most people don't know that this test was designed by a British folklorist, not a scientist. She was really into jungian psychology and she wrote a book and made mad money on it.
There is nothing scientific about it.
I’m INTJ for now. The test isn’t accurate, if you redo it after three months you’ll most likely end up with a different result. It’s just a better alternative to astrology. A personality test is way more in-depth, but also not 100% accurate.
Not much, it’s a glorified echo chamber. For example they will ask many different questions of how outgoing you are, you answer yes more than no, surprise surprise, test results will show that you are an extravert. It’s science as far as it’s basic probability (math is fun, huh).
SeeIt isn't total shit. It'll capture your tendencies. But there are a lot of factors. You can score differently based on mental states.
If you've been unemployed for 3 months and shut in and depressed and cynical, you'll probably score differently than when you get back to work make a bunch of new work pals and start going out on weekends with them.
Personality from a scientific perspective tends to be pretty static. There are 5 core personality traits that remain pretty consistent in your life time. But even then there are a million other factors that go into your behaviour and protection to the world.
eh, more reliable than fucking astrology, but nothing to swear by.
INTP reporting.
Infp male
want to die everyday
I've taken this test multiple times over the course of 3 years (haven't done it recently but I'm in the exact same spot I was back then anyways) and I always got INTJ.
Also, I'm not a pussy.
INFP/INFJ and fan of Carl Jung reporting.
The Myers-Briggs test is part of Jungian psychology. He coined the first 2 set of terms, Extroverted/Introverted and Sensing/Intuition in the early 20th century followed by Thinking/Feeling later. Myers and Briggs then added Judging/Perceiving later in the 80's.
The test is actually pretty damn accurate, but requires a further understanding of Jung's work to really appreciate. The big thing is that Jung believed people develop into their personality types at very different rates, some finishing in their teens, others well into old age. He determined that this depended on how deeply one had connected with their unconscious (or subconscious). The term he used was Individuation, which is most easily interpreted as "becoming one's self". The vast majority of his psychiatric work developed around how people go about this process in different ways and in fact the test is used to most easily recognize those differences. It gave him the tools to change how he handled different patients since he believed his job as a psychiatrist was to help people Individuate.
Except he didn't design the test at all.
A British folklorist looking to cash in on the psychology craze did. She was a fan of Jung, but herself not a scientist.
It's also damn accurate in measuring very obvious traits. Very surface qualities that aren't entirely static. Your perception in relating your score to your life is also a factor. I remember doing a personality test years ago that said "write your name and what colour car you like!" And it produced this massive multipage analysis of me that was so accurate it hurt. At the end it revealed everyone gets the same one but the way our brains work we tend to pick and choose and relate things to isolated experiences. That's the problem with both myers-briggs and astrology. It isn't hard to find yourself really absorbed in it.
Modern psychology agrees on 5 personality traits that each lie on a spectrum.
Openness
Agreeableness
Extraversion
Neuroticism
Conscientiousness
That's kind of the gold standard now, and the test is very, very long.
I've taken the Big 5 test and no its really not that long. The questions are also quite similar since the Myers-Briggs test was the basis format Big 5 was based on. You're right, Jung didn't make a test, he created those terms as personal guide lines in his professional work, which Myers and Briggs built into the test. As far as a "gold standard" in professional psychiatry, there isn't one, since therapists actually have a great amount of freedom in how they decide to address their patients. There isn't freedom in the record keeping in logistics of their work however, but the requirements in how to personally treat patients varies quite wildly from state to state.
Typologies aren’t real psychology numale
Go suck your teacher's dick
I'm here with you bro
ENFP gang RISE UP
Psychology is not a soft science, it never was meant to be a science because it's not a science. Psychology is the realm of the mystic, and while science has a small part to play, it's not significant. Jung's ideas are deemed pseudoscience by those have little to no understanding of the mind and by those who see science as the only tool for learning about the world. Unfortunately for the scientific minded their rigor does not allow them to let go to something they can't slice open or smash together and it's a major reason why there has been so little progress and so much deterioration in the world of psychology and why modern psychology has failed to assist humanity in any tangible way.
The MBTI provides insights where modern psychology fails. Is it going to work for everyone, certainly not. But, it can be used as a starting area for some into understanding why people do what they do.
>ISTJ
>wouldn't stab
Heh keep on thinking that
Psychology is, by definition, the scientific study of the mind. It applies the scientific rigor to the study of human behaviour, their emotions and feelings.
Jung's idea are deemed pseudoscientific because, as you said, they are. They're more concerned about the "mystic" aspects and not about the science, which fails to meet the standards of what modern psychology tries to do.
MBTI is an extremely simplistic typification of personalities, which doesn't provide great insight and isn't deemed as accurate.
Not saying it isn't fun to take the test and try to learn about yourself, but as I said - MBTI has the same scientific relevance as horoscopes.
It cannot be pseudo-scientific if it's not a science to begin with. Psychology, by it's defined meaning, means the study of the mind, and the mind can be studied without the scientific method. I could, instead, use the word ontology or something similar but lose the meaning so I will use the term psychology in a way that does not stick to a rigid meaning.
The standards of modern psychology is numbing people with chemicals and using step-by-step checklists to bring people back to normal; a normal which is absolutely neurotic and which has a baseline of whether or not you can operate a motor vehicle to get to and from work. Modern psychology has successfully poisoned the organismic mind of modern man with chemicals because they have to maintain this neurotic normal; a neurotic normal which needs to die or it will be the undoing of humanity.
You will never be accurate in the realm of the mind, that's the nature of it; and astrology and horoscopes have no play here as the traits which are described in the MBTI are observable while planetary patterns at the moment of your birth are an intuitive idea but taken the wrong way. Even if new traits were added, Jung's archetypes were never meant to be a stopping point and if MBTI was as meaningless as astrology, which I know for sure it isn't, it wouldn't be spiking in popularity.
i get intp but im dumb as a brick
I'm an INTJ and I would stab without hesitation, your char is bullshit
>internet badasses
We don't care, get a life, you sad fucks.
t. ENTP
Psychology is a discipline that studies the mind through the scientific method. By definition. It was born as a discipline with that intent.
You can study the mind without using scientific rigor, but that's not psychology.
I don't care about your opinion on modern psychology, and I don't think it matters.
Jung's theory are mysticism and pseudoscience. They're philosophy more than psychology. Which is fine by me, but don't treat it as if it is anything more than someone's opinion.
MBTI is even less accurate pseudoscience based on pseudoscientific theories.
> it wouldn't be spiking in popularity
Homeopathy is spiking in popularity too. It doesn't mean it works. Plenty of people are into things that aren't meaningful.
You're holding modern psychology up as some kind of standard bearer for the mind where it has failed on every front. For this reason it's most certainly apart of this conversation.
We'll have to disagree though as I see no middle ground in your argument. I see a place for science in the realm of the mind but you see no place for mysticism in its natural environment. Also, what has happened in the modern psychological realm more than favors my stance. It's why Freud's empirical rigor is dying and Jung's is on the rise. Those who evoke the mystic archetype will lead the way into the mind in the future if mankind is to survive, otherwise, it's going to be dark times.
You're putting up a strawman argument with that last sentence by the way.
>I see a place for science in the realm of the mind but you see no place for mysticism in its natural environment.
I think mysticism has its place, I'm not against that and I've never said so.
I don't think it makes it psychology. I don't think it makes it scientific. If someone asks me if Jung's theories are accurate, or scientific, or psychology I'm going to say no. If someone asks me if there is any factual reason to take this shit seriously, I'm going to say no.
It's fun, and interesting, but there's no evidence that supports it so it should be taken with a big grain of salt.
>You're putting up a strawman argument with that last sentence by the way.
I'm not. Both are pseudoscientific theories that are spiking in popularity. I don't think that someone spiking in popularity makes it accurate or meaningful.
You're looking for objective facts on something that's not an object. You can't cut it or smash it and you can't grab onto it. Science alone will never work in this situation, thus it's the realm of the mystic first while science plays a much smaller role in observing the psychological phenomena.
Ok, I'll take your bait knowing full well this is a strawman argument:
trends.google.com
Homeopathy is not spiking in popularity, it's dying.
MBTI is spiking because people are not satisfied with what the DSM is providing and because they want to know more about themselves and others. It's a symptom of a species that does not know itself and does not trust scientists to dictate to them what personalities are. Just as with the work narcissistic abuse, popular psychology is filling the gaps where institutional psychology has failed and MBTI is apart of that phenomenon. If you're looking for statistical significant accuracy you're missing the point entirely.
>MBT
>stock
Of course you're either a woman or a gay.
MBT is outdated bullshit that tries to categorize people because somehow, in 2019, people are still too fucking lazy to take this shit case by case without needing to generalize absolutely everything and anything that they can.
And a fucklot of good it does anyone since everyone is 'a mix.' Surprise, dipshit, all humans are reactionary beings.
Not him, but I understand your point in that psychology lacks the same scientific grounds that chemistry, biology, or even sociology can be built upon and largely agree with it. Unlike the previously mentioned fields it directly tries to understand the human condition with an honest, but poorly suited approach.
Someone mentioned above, that largely the practice is done with the intent to keep people healthy enough to stay productive in society and that I would argue as well. If we ignore that application of the field though, we can compare the work that modern psychotherapists do more closely to the work of older mysticism and spirituality; of healing the damage done by the innate suffering that comes with being human.
I feel this is particularly true when looking Jung's application of the collective unconscious and the similar dreams that humanity seems to share (ie the serpent in the tree), that arguably come from a time where we couldn't speak and hung out in trees.
>INTJ never stabbing anyone
It's funny because it implies that they'd manipulate someone into stabbing someone for them.
Also INTP or INTJ depending on the test.
MBTI has been taken further than this and takes into account the non-static nature of personalities. You won't see this in the surface unless you dig into it deeper but it's known that these are baseline personalities that are subject to change when the environment and/or experience of the person changes.
The work that modern psychotherapists revolves around unconsciously injecting their own neuroses onto their patients. Psychotherapy only works if you have a mystic minded individual who understands this and knows that they're just as much of a scoundrel as the person sitting on the couch. Psychology needs to not be afraid of pointing people into their own storms to have them find their own answers but that will never happen in the current environment.
>pointing people into their own storms to have them find their own answers
That's what any good therapists do though, of course there are those that don't, but the real trick to actually treating patients comes down to simply guiding them into solving their problems themselves. Even if the doctor knows exactly what the neuroses are, they know that it doesn't matter unless the patient comes to that conclusion primarily by there own work.
The work that modern psychotherapists do revolves around unconsciously injecting their own neuroses onto their patients. Psychotherapy only works if you have a mystic minded individual who understands this and knows that they're just as much of a scoundrel as the person sitting on the couch. Psychology needs to not be afraid of pointing people into their own storms to have them find their own answers but that will never happen in the current environment.
Really? When was the last time you heard a psychotherapist tell someone who's suicidal that they can kill themselves if they want to; that they don't need to play this game if it's no longer worth the candle? You won't hear those words from them even though those are the most liberating words you can tell someone who is suicidal.
And if having the patient do their own work is held to such a high standard then why are CBT and DBT so popular in institutional psychology? They're guided tours back to the neurotic normal that avoids pointing people into their own storms so they can figure it out themselves.
The danger of going through a storm is that you might night make it out and that's ok. Some trees that grow in a forest that don't make it to the sunlight and die as a result, it's a happening and you have to let these things happen as they're a perfectly healthy organismic function.
>You're looking for objective facts on something that's not an object.
You don't need physical objects to gain scientific knowledge of something.
Again, I'm not questioning whether mysticism or spirituality have a place on the understanding or personal growth of an individual, but they aren't psychology, they aren't scientific and they aren't anything more than philosophy.
You can't use something that is, by its own nature, not even trying to be factually accurate and try to get an accurate test based off it.
I'm not questioning whether these tests are interesting, I'm saying they're not science, not psychology, not accurate.
The % of people using homeopathy is on the rise, according to actual scientific papers and not google trends. Homeopathy is very much not dying.
People are also taking buzzfeed tests and reading horoscopes to know themselves. It doesn't make them accurate or science.
Mine told me that actually, it was a little shocking at the time, but again it fell to me to believe through my own contemplation and reflection. Changing common behaviors on the other hand is part of the wisdom that living contently requires and I'd recommend it to anyone, the problem is that in order for it to work well they need to give up some of the ideas that they cling to, such as their vanity or success.
Ultimately even a bad therapist will forgo the requirement to drive to just keep someone working and will settle with just keeping them alive instead. They do keep track of patients that kill themselves after all since some see it as a personal failure on their part.
You're lucky that you found someone who has the heart of humanity within them. Many are not so lucky.
So you know what I am talking about first hand and have felt it. I'm writing a book on this very subject at the moment, I hope to have an impact on the current situation because from what I am seeing and feeling things are not well with the state of the world.
ENTJ, although it's more accurate to say I constantly hope someone will stab me without warning.
Aha, now you're starting to slip a bit sir.
So you don't need a physical object to gain scientific knowledge? So you mean that you have to use your intuition to come to a conclusion? Something science shuns so desperately—even though they use it themselves at the end of every experiment? Even in the realm of science mysticism plays a small role, you can't have one without the other. The two arise mutually, my goal is reawaken the other half which has been so derided for the past few hundred years.
INTP
Not a lot. I'm sure there's some correlation, but for the most part people are too complicated and indecisive to be broken down into 16 categories.
I'm very lucky for that, I've started to read more clinical psychology since then and just recently picked up Foucault's Madness and Civilization
I hope your book gets published, its nice to hear about more people tackling the subject.
ENTP
It's fun to use it as a diving board to jump into conversations about how people act and why but it's nothing more than entertainment
Gentlemen, I appreciate the conversation, it's rare that I get such well argued discourse on the internet and to find it here of all places is interesting. I'll take my leave here, thanks again.
Psychology really gets more hate than it should for being a field of science in its infancy, studying one of the most complex parts of the human body, with comparatively primitive advances in measurement and methods for experimentation compared to other sciences. It may well be that neuroscience will one day supplant psychology by providing precise neuron by neuron explanations of human behaviour but for now psychology has done a lot that it's haters don't credit. The field of
It was great, take care user.
That's not quite the point.
You can gain objective knowledge even of non-physical things. It's not a requisite.
Science is every field that applies the scientific method. Scientific method just means that you form an hypothesis and then proceed to prove it logically by empirical observation.
None of this requires any physical thing.
Science doesn't hate intuition. Mysticism isn't scientific and doesn't try to be, it isn't accurate and it doesn't try to be.
I don't deny that mysticism can have a place in people's life, just saying that MBTI isn't psychology, isn't science and can never be an accurate tool to understand others and themselves.
It's interesting, it might help people on their introspective journey, I don't care. I'm just saying that we should treat it for what it is.
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't read this post.
It was great to talk to you, too. Have a good day.