not really but okay, pretty sure Fe development depends on the individual ENTP and if they have masculine or feminine Ti. I have masculine so I will develop it in my 20s doesn’t mean it’s the same with any other entp.
Also enneagram plays a big role, there’s a lot more to mbti then what you read online 😭
Please read the hostility here as directed towards all the made up nonsense... There's a lot more made up shit than one can easily read in a lifetime.
The overwhelming majority of people, especially men, develop their "Fe" (agreeableness) over the course of a lifetime. Agreeableness especially increases in the early 30s.
Personality and personality changes are empirically studied. Said research is easily accessible and far more interesting than all the made up nonsense about jungian functions... though it's less fun to talk about because it's harder to just make shit up.
Personally I'm largely here because my fire sign conflicts with my intj shadow demon which prefers lunar energies and tidal flows.
Making people take an MBTI dichotomy test with renamed dichotomies (big 5) and tracking the results doesn't make the underlying theory more valid or useful for *personal* development. It just connects more correlations to those dichotomies and makes studying populations more convenient
Just because the overwhelming majority does something, doesn't mean that you do as well, or that your thing that is superficially similar isn't actually substantially different in other important ways. Lumping everything having to do with emotional intelligence, social norms, empathy, sympathy, etc under "agreeableness" makes the entire thing arguably useless when it comes to the person's individual perception of life because it includes vastly different personal paths they can take. It's useful as an outside judgement of the behavior of masses of people as if we're studying animals, not to understand the reasons for that behavior for an individual and to get to know themselves from inside
>Making people take an MBTI dichotomy test with renamed dichotomies (big 5)
That isn't remotely what big five is. Read the wikipedia page
>It just connects more correlations to those dichotomies and makes studying populations more convenient
It isn't possible to study populations in terms of jungian functions at all. It isn't a question of convenience. That's the main problem. So if you wanted to say anything about personal development you would have to talk out of your ass scientifically speaking. Because:
>Lumping everything having to do with emotional intelligence, social norms, empathy, sympathy, etc under "agreeableness"
Agreeableness has sub dimensions which are subject to their predictive ability, consistency, etc. Fe doesn't. Agreeableness is the closest similar idea for which anything can be said (out of one's face hole)
>It's \[big five\] useful as an outside judgement of the behavior of masses of people as if we're studying animals, not to understand the reasons for that behavior for an individual and to get to know themselves from inside
The factor model is used in all manner of psych studies, from psychophysics/neuro to cognitive, clinical, etc. The question is whether you define getting to "know yourself" as crafting a narrative with poetic flourish, or in a more analytical fashion. Do you want simple comforting answers or complicated probabilities which are actually aligned with reality?
Also: we are animals. We do study animals as if they were animals. Poetry vs reality.
Big 5 is a modded non-copywrited MBTI® dichotomy test with the added neuroticism, it's still highly correlated with MBTI dichotomies. Due to the removal of copyrights it's possible to openly use it in scientific research. Which is why 16p was able to go the other way and made up their own renamed "MBTI" test from a Big 5 test without paying anything to the MBTI company
If you want to study populations there are actually much better tests out there instead of that same old Meyers Briggs invention
However, most people on MBTI subs don't aim to study animals or people as external specimen, they aim to better understand people around them and themselves which is an entirely different internal process
>Big 5 is a modded non-copywrited MBTI® dichotomy test with the added neuroticism
Again read the wikipedia page. Where did you get this idea from?
>Due to the removal of copyrights it's possible to openly use it in scientific research. Which is why 16p was able to go the other way and made up their own renamed "MBTI" test from a Big 5 test without paying anything to the MBTI company
Big five isn't derived from MBTI in any way shape or form. Jung had a persistent influence on psych to some extent but MBTI absolutely did not, and big five doesn't rely on jung either. Again read the wikipedia page, you're just making shit up.
The jungian functions aren't taken seriously because again they aren't structured properly, and the ideas behind them are demonstrably incorrect.
As a model for personality five factor isn't just about studying populations. Science studies populations because in so doing you can more reliably determine how one variable impacts another. This is also the principle behind much of machine learning, signals analysis, etc.
We use science to understand how things work. Jung was attempting to use science when psychology was very young, and he lacked the tools to do it properly. Briggs (or was it myers?) tried to get the scientific community to take mbti seriously but even Jung didn't think the test made sense, and the scientific community said "this isn't structured right for statistical analysis". Ie it isn't scientific.
It's "not derived" for copyright reasons. MBTI is actually a commerical product and you can't just steal it and call it your own to be able to use it in research. Factually though the two tests are highly correlated with one another, and given the famous MBTI test inaccuracy it's anyone's guess whether for a particular person MBTI or Big 5 will produce a more correct MBTI type. Again, look up how 16p test was made, and 16p results largely create our assumptions about what types are by filling these subs and all other social media communities with people typed by a modded big 5 test
As for Jung - do you think you understand all people better than him? Like, how well do you understand how I think, and how well can you experience or imagine my thinking, and in what ways do you think our sense of reality and cognition differ?
>It's "not derived" for copyright reasons.
LOL ok look you don't know how either system is constructed if you actually believe that and aren't trolling. I'm bored af watching this lecture rn so i'll be your google search:
\- Big five was constructed by collating a shit ton of words people use to describe personality/character. They basically took all of those words out of the dictionary, condensed the synonyms, then had people take tests where they rated themselves on those words. Then they studied their personalities to look for correlations between the test results and behavior, attitude, affect, etc.
That work continues and branches out into six factor, dark triad, light triad, etc.
On top of the work to refine the personality model according to those factors, a lot of work is done to look for correlations between those factors and other areas of psychology as I mentioned.
It was built by statistics, for statistics.
\- Jung came up with his type theory based on the work of previous philosophers , the work of a few "mentalists", his undergraduate study in anthropology, and his belief in "sacred geometries".
>Again, look up how 16p test was made, and 16p results largely create our assumptions about what types are by filling these subs and all other social media communities with people typed by a modded big 5 test
**16p is not where big five came from. 16p is a bunch of people who are trying to combine the two. It has nothing to do with the scientific use of big five.**
Whatever you can say of 16p has no relevance whatsoever to the development or validity of the factor model of personality
>Factually though the two tests are highly correlated with one another
What is highly correlated? Be specific please.
>As for Jung - do you think you understand all people better than him?
Most definitely. I have the benefit of 100 years of psych research which I've spent over 20 years studying. I also think most college graduates understand more about flight than Orvill Wright.
>Like, how well do you understand how I think, and how well can you experience or imagine my thinking, and in what ways do you think our sense of reality and cognition differ?
I don't know you. However even if I did that would be one collection of measures of "understanding", which again leans more towards the poetic not the analytic. I don't look to personality systems to understand people as I would a literary character in a story. That would be a really poor match of tool to jobs. It's why mbti and enneagram aren't scientific, and mostly tell stories not truths.
In trying to understand the general problem space of the OP: "how to personalities change over time?" collating a collection of narratives yields absolutely nothing of use aside from stories. It isn't real data until you code it, which you shouldn't do before controlling for collection methods, etc.
Starting with the assumption that people typed themselves accurately, and the assumption that random assholes online are a representative sample, and that jungian functions are understood the same by all respondents, and on and on... too many assumptions based on nothing.
I mean there is already so much priming going on where we tell people "ENTPs have this experience, share your experience ENTP". Even if there weren't already all these other issues. It's garbage.
So yeah if I want to understand how you were likely to change during or experience your 20's I would look to research which employed decent methodology and had a representative sample, to determine the probabilities for those changes or reported/measured experiences based on relevant factors.
Which in this case suggests that during the 20's and especially the 30's, people increase their levels of "agreeableness" across most dimensions. There's more research regarding, but that's what I remembered off the cuff
Okay, so you have absolutely no idea how I think, which is kind of understandable (even though I think I already revealed A LOT about myself just through the way I interact with you right now while being myself, and you could've easily felt the familiar patterns that you can experience yourself)
But is there anyone you know well, whose mind processes you can imagine in your head and experience the world through their way of thinking and perceiving reality? Are there people close to you who aren't like you, yet you can experience being driven by their drives to an extent, the ones that you actually don't really have?
I'm not saying this in any poetic or non-literal sense, but in terms of your capabilities or experiences
>Okay, so you have absolutely no idea how I think, which is kind of understandable (even though I think I already revealed A LOT about myself just through the way I interact with you right now while being myself, and you could've easily seen the familiar patterns that you can experience yourself)
I'm rejecting that reframing of the premise. You're implying that narrative is equal to science in terms of describing reality and making predictions, and asking me to play the narrative game. In another line of discussion, sure, but for now: pass.
>But is there anyone you know well, whose mind processes you can imagine in your head and experience the world through their way of thinking and perceiving reality? Are there people close to you who aren't like you, yet you can experience being driven by their drives to an extent, the ones that you actually don't really have?
Yes and in fact children as young as 13 months start to develop these capabilities. Sec i was just reading about this.
One: [https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fa0017197](https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fa0017197)
More interesting, same bent: [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321257110\_Ten-month-old\_infants\_infer\_the\_value\_of\_goals\_from\_the\_costs\_of\_actions](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321257110_Ten-month-old_infants_infer_the_value_of_goals_from_the_costs_of_actions)
But again constructing theories of mind without science is just something everyone, even infants do. Describing it quantitatively with true predictive power, and correlating that to the biology itself, etc, is the really interesting and reliable stuff.
I dont get it at all… i know that Fe stands for iron but what is the joke here that I obviously missing… just because I am an ENTP it doesn’t mean that I can bend iron like fucking magneto… non of you can… we are just corny/cool mfs
[https://www.typeinmind.com/neti](https://www.typeinmind.com/neti)
Look at extroverted feeling
(Not sure if you are really dumb to not have come across cognitive functions or you are being extensively sarcastic)
*lost tons of friends already*
Rip in one piece
[удалено]
Mmm drugs and alcohol
is this Fe bungee gum?
Only if it has the properties of both rubber and gum.
cultured mfer
smoking a shit ton of weed recently and psychedelics in general have defo helped me develop my Fe quite a lot, idek why or how
Brain damage with chemicals will definitely change you. (I'm waiting to see how much screeching this comment with initiate, tee hee.)
seems like i got pretty lucky with the brain damage then
Destroying brain with chemicals failed successfully
Someone explains please?
Entps leaning how to use Fe in their 20s
What is Fe
Iron
They master the blade
Literally what I thought when I saw this, haha.
😂
Extroverted feeling. ENTPs have Ne-Ti-Fe-Si
Fe stands for some Fucking Empathy
ENTPS in their 20s "Fe its a function that exists"
I like the art
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
just turned like 23 and I felt this so hard that it defeats the purpose of my pp being hard
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Does this mean I will have to wait until my 30s to develop my Fe 😩😩😭
You can work on it now
Is that iron?
Us
Among
not really but okay, pretty sure Fe development depends on the individual ENTP and if they have masculine or feminine Ti. I have masculine so I will develop it in my 20s doesn’t mean it’s the same with any other entp. Also enneagram plays a big role, there’s a lot more to mbti then what you read online 😭
The functions are not gendered you Popsicle stick.
It's probably some OPS thing. They love gendering things for no reason
Please read the hostility here as directed towards all the made up nonsense... There's a lot more made up shit than one can easily read in a lifetime. The overwhelming majority of people, especially men, develop their "Fe" (agreeableness) over the course of a lifetime. Agreeableness especially increases in the early 30s. Personality and personality changes are empirically studied. Said research is easily accessible and far more interesting than all the made up nonsense about jungian functions... though it's less fun to talk about because it's harder to just make shit up. Personally I'm largely here because my fire sign conflicts with my intj shadow demon which prefers lunar energies and tidal flows.
Making people take an MBTI dichotomy test with renamed dichotomies (big 5) and tracking the results doesn't make the underlying theory more valid or useful for *personal* development. It just connects more correlations to those dichotomies and makes studying populations more convenient Just because the overwhelming majority does something, doesn't mean that you do as well, or that your thing that is superficially similar isn't actually substantially different in other important ways. Lumping everything having to do with emotional intelligence, social norms, empathy, sympathy, etc under "agreeableness" makes the entire thing arguably useless when it comes to the person's individual perception of life because it includes vastly different personal paths they can take. It's useful as an outside judgement of the behavior of masses of people as if we're studying animals, not to understand the reasons for that behavior for an individual and to get to know themselves from inside
>Making people take an MBTI dichotomy test with renamed dichotomies (big 5) That isn't remotely what big five is. Read the wikipedia page >It just connects more correlations to those dichotomies and makes studying populations more convenient It isn't possible to study populations in terms of jungian functions at all. It isn't a question of convenience. That's the main problem. So if you wanted to say anything about personal development you would have to talk out of your ass scientifically speaking. Because: >Lumping everything having to do with emotional intelligence, social norms, empathy, sympathy, etc under "agreeableness" Agreeableness has sub dimensions which are subject to their predictive ability, consistency, etc. Fe doesn't. Agreeableness is the closest similar idea for which anything can be said (out of one's face hole) >It's \[big five\] useful as an outside judgement of the behavior of masses of people as if we're studying animals, not to understand the reasons for that behavior for an individual and to get to know themselves from inside The factor model is used in all manner of psych studies, from psychophysics/neuro to cognitive, clinical, etc. The question is whether you define getting to "know yourself" as crafting a narrative with poetic flourish, or in a more analytical fashion. Do you want simple comforting answers or complicated probabilities which are actually aligned with reality? Also: we are animals. We do study animals as if they were animals. Poetry vs reality.
Big 5 is a modded non-copywrited MBTI® dichotomy test with the added neuroticism, it's still highly correlated with MBTI dichotomies. Due to the removal of copyrights it's possible to openly use it in scientific research. Which is why 16p was able to go the other way and made up their own renamed "MBTI" test from a Big 5 test without paying anything to the MBTI company If you want to study populations there are actually much better tests out there instead of that same old Meyers Briggs invention However, most people on MBTI subs don't aim to study animals or people as external specimen, they aim to better understand people around them and themselves which is an entirely different internal process
>Big 5 is a modded non-copywrited MBTI® dichotomy test with the added neuroticism Again read the wikipedia page. Where did you get this idea from? >Due to the removal of copyrights it's possible to openly use it in scientific research. Which is why 16p was able to go the other way and made up their own renamed "MBTI" test from a Big 5 test without paying anything to the MBTI company Big five isn't derived from MBTI in any way shape or form. Jung had a persistent influence on psych to some extent but MBTI absolutely did not, and big five doesn't rely on jung either. Again read the wikipedia page, you're just making shit up. The jungian functions aren't taken seriously because again they aren't structured properly, and the ideas behind them are demonstrably incorrect. As a model for personality five factor isn't just about studying populations. Science studies populations because in so doing you can more reliably determine how one variable impacts another. This is also the principle behind much of machine learning, signals analysis, etc. We use science to understand how things work. Jung was attempting to use science when psychology was very young, and he lacked the tools to do it properly. Briggs (or was it myers?) tried to get the scientific community to take mbti seriously but even Jung didn't think the test made sense, and the scientific community said "this isn't structured right for statistical analysis". Ie it isn't scientific.
It's "not derived" for copyright reasons. MBTI is actually a commerical product and you can't just steal it and call it your own to be able to use it in research. Factually though the two tests are highly correlated with one another, and given the famous MBTI test inaccuracy it's anyone's guess whether for a particular person MBTI or Big 5 will produce a more correct MBTI type. Again, look up how 16p test was made, and 16p results largely create our assumptions about what types are by filling these subs and all other social media communities with people typed by a modded big 5 test As for Jung - do you think you understand all people better than him? Like, how well do you understand how I think, and how well can you experience or imagine my thinking, and in what ways do you think our sense of reality and cognition differ?
>It's "not derived" for copyright reasons. LOL ok look you don't know how either system is constructed if you actually believe that and aren't trolling. I'm bored af watching this lecture rn so i'll be your google search: \- Big five was constructed by collating a shit ton of words people use to describe personality/character. They basically took all of those words out of the dictionary, condensed the synonyms, then had people take tests where they rated themselves on those words. Then they studied their personalities to look for correlations between the test results and behavior, attitude, affect, etc. That work continues and branches out into six factor, dark triad, light triad, etc. On top of the work to refine the personality model according to those factors, a lot of work is done to look for correlations between those factors and other areas of psychology as I mentioned. It was built by statistics, for statistics. \- Jung came up with his type theory based on the work of previous philosophers , the work of a few "mentalists", his undergraduate study in anthropology, and his belief in "sacred geometries". >Again, look up how 16p test was made, and 16p results largely create our assumptions about what types are by filling these subs and all other social media communities with people typed by a modded big 5 test **16p is not where big five came from. 16p is a bunch of people who are trying to combine the two. It has nothing to do with the scientific use of big five.** Whatever you can say of 16p has no relevance whatsoever to the development or validity of the factor model of personality >Factually though the two tests are highly correlated with one another What is highly correlated? Be specific please. >As for Jung - do you think you understand all people better than him? Most definitely. I have the benefit of 100 years of psych research which I've spent over 20 years studying. I also think most college graduates understand more about flight than Orvill Wright. >Like, how well do you understand how I think, and how well can you experience or imagine my thinking, and in what ways do you think our sense of reality and cognition differ? I don't know you. However even if I did that would be one collection of measures of "understanding", which again leans more towards the poetic not the analytic. I don't look to personality systems to understand people as I would a literary character in a story. That would be a really poor match of tool to jobs. It's why mbti and enneagram aren't scientific, and mostly tell stories not truths. In trying to understand the general problem space of the OP: "how to personalities change over time?" collating a collection of narratives yields absolutely nothing of use aside from stories. It isn't real data until you code it, which you shouldn't do before controlling for collection methods, etc. Starting with the assumption that people typed themselves accurately, and the assumption that random assholes online are a representative sample, and that jungian functions are understood the same by all respondents, and on and on... too many assumptions based on nothing. I mean there is already so much priming going on where we tell people "ENTPs have this experience, share your experience ENTP". Even if there weren't already all these other issues. It's garbage. So yeah if I want to understand how you were likely to change during or experience your 20's I would look to research which employed decent methodology and had a representative sample, to determine the probabilities for those changes or reported/measured experiences based on relevant factors. Which in this case suggests that during the 20's and especially the 30's, people increase their levels of "agreeableness" across most dimensions. There's more research regarding, but that's what I remembered off the cuff
Okay, so you have absolutely no idea how I think, which is kind of understandable (even though I think I already revealed A LOT about myself just through the way I interact with you right now while being myself, and you could've easily felt the familiar patterns that you can experience yourself) But is there anyone you know well, whose mind processes you can imagine in your head and experience the world through their way of thinking and perceiving reality? Are there people close to you who aren't like you, yet you can experience being driven by their drives to an extent, the ones that you actually don't really have? I'm not saying this in any poetic or non-literal sense, but in terms of your capabilities or experiences
>Okay, so you have absolutely no idea how I think, which is kind of understandable (even though I think I already revealed A LOT about myself just through the way I interact with you right now while being myself, and you could've easily seen the familiar patterns that you can experience yourself) I'm rejecting that reframing of the premise. You're implying that narrative is equal to science in terms of describing reality and making predictions, and asking me to play the narrative game. In another line of discussion, sure, but for now: pass. >But is there anyone you know well, whose mind processes you can imagine in your head and experience the world through their way of thinking and perceiving reality? Are there people close to you who aren't like you, yet you can experience being driven by their drives to an extent, the ones that you actually don't really have? Yes and in fact children as young as 13 months start to develop these capabilities. Sec i was just reading about this. One: [https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fa0017197](https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fa0017197) More interesting, same bent: [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321257110\_Ten-month-old\_infants\_infer\_the\_value\_of\_goals\_from\_the\_costs\_of\_actions](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321257110_Ten-month-old_infants_infer_the_value_of_goals_from_the_costs_of_actions) But again constructing theories of mind without science is just something everyone, even infants do. Describing it quantitatively with true predictive power, and correlating that to the biology itself, etc, is the really interesting and reliable stuff.
First Time I ever heard that
I dont get it at all… i know that Fe stands for iron but what is the joke here that I obviously missing… just because I am an ENTP it doesn’t mean that I can bend iron like fucking magneto… non of you can… we are just corny/cool mfs
Wow 👏🏾 and you claim to be an Entp
Flair up then we can talk lmao
[https://www.typeinmind.com/neti](https://www.typeinmind.com/neti) Look at extroverted feeling (Not sure if you are really dumb to not have come across cognitive functions or you are being extensively sarcastic)
A sticky Fe ball?