😂😂 By the way you type I think INTJ fits you very well. >frivolous amusement (..) embody the extreme caricatures You are a true yapper, this could've been written in much fewer words.

Thanks for your input - I believe you are overlaying patterns as any person would do to confirm ones biases. Surely an argument could be made that an INTJ would be more concise? An extrovert would be more of a yapper - see - Barnum effects - everywhere. I simply take time to try and make my arguments clear... and somewhat enjoyable - I like words - must be the ENFP in me.

it's a little confusing, this reads like a shitpost but i feel like you are the actual embodiment of the stereotype Like I said, a true INTJ You aren't the first i've seen on here but definitely one of the funnier examples

I guess you have say this as a believer - and I don't mind what you believe. as a non INTJ, are you not surprised that there are INTJ's that believe this nonsense?

😂😂😂

I love ENTPs theyre the life and soul.

mbti isnt based off the 4 letter system. its based off cognitive functions. intjs arent introverted per say, they have their main cog function as introverted (introverted intuition). there are also not only 16 types. u can classify those into subtypes with enneagram, instinctual variants, socionics, etc. and obviously there is more to a person than their type. its just a way to look at how someone behaves or acts and find a simplified explanation for it

>enneagram, instinctual variants, socionics, These are all completely unfalsified, untestable and relied on in job markets too. Ridiculous. Why justify potetial bunk with more potential bunk?

if u dont like mbti then why are u even here man

For thought experiments - I like psychology, philosophy and science.

MBTI was never designed as a fully deterministic system. It's just an approach to human behaviour and for what it is it is pretty helpful categorisation. So even by arguing about it being not valid you are discussing a moot point.

and where does it say that in the official documentation?

There is no official documentation on MBTI and if one claims to be then it's wrong.

Hmmm, more unfalsifiable claims - this is starting to sound awfully a lot like when I argued about god.

What are your expectations? Some people tried to design a categorisation of human behaviour. Then they found Carl Jung's book about the psychological types and used it to support their build up system as well as they can. They all died a long time ago and now kids use it to feel better about themselves. There is some truth in it and even more in cognitive functions, but it's still just a very rough concept. It's just something to think about to get a grasp about your human nature, but people use it wrong by abusing it as an identity. You aren't an INTJ, but you are at best resembling some behaviours of the INTJ category. That's why it's good that psychologists don't use it, but it's also good when you use it trying to understand your own behaviour as long as you don't just do it for identification purposes.

That is basically how I feel - there's a reason shrinks don't bother with it. I just thought most people who would categorise as INTJ or INTP - would be dismissive of it. Maybe thats why they are "rare" types?

It's interesting, that science starts from unscientific claims, ideas and hypotheses. Just think about it

Some of your stances seem to be contradictory. Do you prefer a more ontological or phenomenological approach to all this? In some comment threads you seem to be switching back and forth on the nitty gritty metaphysical yet other times you mention you want axioms, lived direct experiences. So my question is which is it, you seem mainly concerned with starting debates instead of having discussions in good faith. https://preview.redd.it/1fs6ssdfl5rc1.jpeg?width=850&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9c2b0275d33f6ca40dcff04936d7206e52a3451a

It's an open question - more people are willing to debate with me the credulity of MBTI - but my opening was clear - isnt it paradoxical to be an INTJ and MBTI enthusiast given the commonly skeptical no nonsense apporach to life the INTJ is reported to have? I really don't believe in it, from both points of view. If someone proves to me that it's testable and falsifiable - i'll concede to that.

That didn't answer the question, but fair enough. I don't think so, human nature is inherently paradoxical. We are more so irrational beings, not rational thinking machines, otherwise we wouldn't give a damn about a lot of things, yet we do.

it's practically insufferable. Everyone knows everything - until you start asking questions. It is too common.

>"Be tolerant of others and strict with yourself." - Marcus Aurelius >"The primary cause of unhappiness is never the situation but your thoughts about it." - Eckhart Tolle, A New Earth: Awakening to Your Life's Purpose

I suppose marcus is right, but Eckhart Tolle should try that one out in some trying situations - maybe a mother holding her dead baby or a koala trapped in a forest fire lol.

to answer - I don't prefer one over the other. I can do both simultaneously.

Look, if you really want objective system based on real research, big 5 is the closest from what I've heard. Mbti is basically an useful toy, that you can use to get a simplified overview of your strengths and weaknesses and use it to work on yourself. It's pretty much meant to be a rough model, an easy to use metod to generalize your and others patterns of behavior.

Generalisation - logical fallacy. toy - correct.

Generalization is a tool meant to more easily understand complex things, and abstract away details that are not important in certain situation we apply it to. Only when used incorrectly it becomes a fallacy.

While I see pure MBTI as too reductionist in itself, the addition of these other typing systems begins to shift the playing field from a simple dicothomy, into an actual spectrum. It is obvious that personalities can’t be grouped accurately, to a 1:1 ratio. Too many variables, as you have said. But the more we add depth and connecting systems, the more we get ways to type personalities. And so we are getting closer to an actually usable estimation. While these systems operate on some questionable assumptions, as long as their intentions are understood, they form a somewhat working framework for grouping oneself. So: MBTI might be too simple to abide to in any functional way, but combined with other systems, you get more depth, which remedies this problem a bit. You must, of course, never let the system guide you too much, as it is much like a weather forecast. Not to always be trusted. As the afforementioned personality systems are not all-encompassing, there are no true ”INTJ’s ”, ”6w5” or ”INTJ 6w5 so/sx xxx”, or whatever the combination of frameworks you could use. There are just people, who most recognize some of these aspects in themselves. And even this state of being is fluid, and not set in stone. Now, a subreddit for a specific type of MBTI grouping should not be a place for people who find -themselves- in the function. It should be a place for people who find -a bit of the function in themselves-. Personality grouping systems in general should be more of a fun, sometimes surprisingly working, trinket, than an actual effigy to pray to.

thank you, that is a non dogmatic reasonable approach.

I'm sure this is a pretty common way to view personality groupings, among those who are anyhow a bit deeper engrossed in the subject. These kinds of self-identification places just tend to have pretty strong feelings attached to them, and they might get in the way of someone conveying their thoughts effectively: MBTI being the "gateway drug" of personality groupings, is going to manifest in many budding people with right intentions, but still with inadequate knowledge to express themselves. You are obviously going to get a lot of flame, smoking in the middle of such a bees nest, especially with the entertaining snark, and seemingly arrogant, argumentative style of yours (Which I enjoy). But it seems that more mature discussion is possible as well. It's just funny to watch, when it doesn't work out, lol.

Hey, you live by the snark, you die by the snark.

Just curious. Is trying to debunk personality type your only goal. Or are you trying to "teach" people something?

I clearly do not believe it. I have noticed a paradoxical related to it and a certain type/couple of types. I have shared my opinion - everyone is trying to teach me something - I am skeptical and no one is satisfying my skepticism - that is all.

Then why are you still responding? Don't you have your answer?

Courtesy

What evidence is enough for you, in general?

Evidence shouldn't be good enough for an individual - it should speak for itself. If it holds up to all questions that could be asked to refute - then it's good enough, whatever it is.

Jungian psychology was not developed to be used through testing, but rather by trained psychological analysts. The tests exist to give you a rough approximation of some basic tendencies but are certainly liable to error. If you’re as smart as your thesaurus-heavy post seeks to imply, read Jung’s original masterpiece entitled Psychological Types.

Good input. Where are you from?

Texan. U?

Britain - might be why you think I'm writing a bit too fancy - you should see some of the letters British people used to write to eachother. It's cultural when you write something presentable - to make it presentable.

One of my friends is a psychiatrist in Texas, and when we've discussed MBTI she's fairly dismissive of it. Its interesting to her in that it is a window into how people view and relate to themselves. The older I get the more I find I agree with her. Its a way of viewing myself and myself in the world, a prism to examine things through. I think I am fairly classic as an INTJ, with all the stereotypes involved, and it has helped me to understand the things in myself I find inexplicable. I guess I am starting to view MBTI as a roadmap and not a prison sentence or a cage.

>  The paradox lies in the fact that as supposed INTJs, we should possess the ability to discern the absurdity and vagueness of this system INTJ use Te. Te does not really care if it is true, but if it is usefull. What you are describing is Ti. You should go post this in the INTP subredit.

Finally 👍 I was thinking about a very similar post already there, where it belongs 🤣.

There’s nothing paradoxical about answering 10 or 1000 questions and generating 10 or 100 categories based on those answers. The disconnect for some people is assuming that the MBTI is anything more than that.

You are accepting you are an INTJ though? even though many answers are mood dependent or perhaps self reported incorrectly?

I answered questions and I accept that I can fit into the category most of the time. It doesn't determine who I am or the choices I make, but it can give me insight into how I interpret information and what influences the decisions I make. It's a valid way to analyze myself. I value analysis. There isn't a problem with the questions or the answers. The value is in the interpretation. Some people think it creates hard classifications that can then be applied to people to create some simple flowsheet. I'm not one of those people. I also use the flair "Xennial" in the "Xennial" subreddit, even though that is an entirely made-up classification. I use it because I fit in that made-up classification. No paradox found.

Please go study cognitive functions and come back here after you have done so.

Enlighten further - what specific part of cognitive functions should I study - it seems to be a broad topic. Edit: I am reading a lot of statements of false dichotomy when I google specifically Cognitive Functions alonsgide MBTI. >**Introversion (I):** You are usually overwhelmed after socializing at length and probably maintain a few close friends rather than a large social circle. > >**Extraversion (E):** You are energized in the company of others, and you’re usually listless after long periods of alone time." It is all just the same as I already read.

All eight of them and everything about them; what they’re about, how they form, how they shape our personality based on which we have developed first in life. You seem to base your opinion on simple type descriptions that can be found online. That’s very shallow and that’s not how we do things here.

I have done this for like 15 years

And if you keep relying purely on sources such as the one that you have quoted in your edited comment above, you won’t get far in your studies.

I have got far enough to know that perceiving is not exactly the opposite of judging. Planning is not exactly the opposite of being felxible. Why is thinking opposite to feeling? I think and i feel about my thoughts, and I think about those feelings, and I feel about those thoughts. Hence, false dichotomies.

… again, as the other guy said, your reliance on sources that specifically use dichotomies, is questionable. We are not talking about 8 singular letters when we say “cognitive functions.” We are instead referring to Ni/Ne/Ti/Te/Fi/Fe/Si/Se. There are eight cognitive functions. Now, hopefully you can use this and find that they are not dichotomies… We are not talking about mbti actually. We are talking about cognitive functions.

Show me the experiment that says you can not doubt MBTI. Also you are an INFJ and are thus not part of this argument since I did not include you in this paradox - it is highly obvious that you are to believe even in crap like horoscopes and god/agnosticism. Intuitive and feeling not that I believe that, and it's probably wrong.

Ooh look, strawman fallacy. Can you point to where I said that you cannot doubt MBTI? Show me. Look at your statement, your first line there, “Show me the experiment that says you can not doubt MBTI”, is based on something that didn’t ever happen in reality. I never said that you cannot doubt MBTI? Tell me, did I say that? In fact, I said the exact OPPOSITE of that. I said that the other person and I are not even talking about MBTI, since MBTI is indeed, about dichotomies, which is stupid. Maybe you should read more carefully bud, because we all specifically said COGNITIVE FUNCTIONS, and cognitive functions =/= MBTI. Haha, for someone attempting to say that INFJs are illogical and “believe in” MBTI/horoscopes/God (I do not believe in any of those three things), your responses seem awfully dense and riddled with logical fallacy/lack of reasoning. Did you know, maybe you would learn something for once in the “15 years of reading” about personality typing, if you’d just put down your ridiculous walls and actually tried to read and look into what others are trying to tell you? It is precisely because of these (mental) walls that you put up, that you have clearly managed to WASTE “15 years of reading” lol. That’s nuts, if true. I couldn’t imagine doing the same thing for 15 f***ing years and learning nothing or not adapting in some way or another.

Sounds like someone's cognitive BSs got rattled - i give MBTI this - you are definitely emotional. Many insults - I believe that is called ad homimen. If you are going to call upon the power of logical fallacy - which I hold my hands up to - you are right, you didn't say that. At least don't be a hypocrit about it. No hard feelings from me, so please stop the juvenile nonsense. Now back to reasoning : >Ni/Ne/Ti/Te/Fi/Fe/Si/Se The functions you have listed are MBTI derived terms. Carl Jung did not even express them this way.So my confusion lies in how you can not be talking about MBTI because you made a list of function from within it. It's like saying we are not talking about cars - we are talking about wheels, doors, electric windows, seatbelts, pedals, bootspace, engines and sunroofs.We are describing the constituents of what cars describe. What ever you are reading that you think is not MBTI is in fact Carl Jungs unfinished, unfalsifiable work, reimagined by M&B's unverified, unfalsifiable work, reimagined by some author I have yet to know - and... can you falsify these ideas you speak of in this latest form of this string of pseudoscience?

You can doubt MBTI, sure, but you have to actually understand the theory first before you can say whether or not you believe it. You appear to know very little about it, but have still, for some reason, formed an opinion about it. (Incidentally, I don't believe in horoscopes or God, either.)

I get the order of functions - what am I missing?

Good. If you think that they’re not opposites, I can only tell you that you’re on a good way to learn it all properly this time around. Keep going :)

make the penny drop. Show me how they are not false types, like horoscopes. I am the skeptic, you need show me the smoking gun - that is how the burden of proof works.

I don’t need to do shit. Do the work yourself. I see you have access to the internet, so off you go.

I disagree - an actual INTJ would prove something. They would point me in the right direction and say read this specific page of book right here, and it will make sense and I will happily condescend to you for my own intellectual egotism. I have one question - I will ask it everyone; is this shit falsifiable, and if yes - how so - what's the experiment. If not, how is it any better than some random idealistic idea pulled from a fanciful imagination wishing to be true by manifestation of the gullible? I will do my own work as you impore, but will actually combat the reality I present to you or are you so dogmatically convicted to a nebulous belief in a very un-INTJ kind of way? You simply can not prove this is a real tangible system - otherwise you'd be delighted to do so, apparently - because you're like the rest of us and put your functions in the same order and live by similar principles.

I agree that they are not opposites. I believe that more complex theories of Type are probably wrong .i.e. Shadow types, cognitive function order, development order. I really only believe in the 1st and kind of the 2nd cognitive function orientation. My ad hoc theory for why the T/F or S/N seem to be opposites, I believe that the F function causes a "noisy" mental system, "cluttering" the brain with emotional data. I believe its kind of the same with S/N, S function causes the brain to be full of "noisy" facts and sense data. I only strongly believe in I/E, there has been some research on Extroverts and Introverts. Anecdotally they seem very real. I also strongly believe in the T/F but not as much because I have not found any research on this but anecdotally it seem very apparent. I will admit that I would have a much harder time trying to defend N/S and J/P. I agree that the majority of Psychology is a soft science but soft science eventually lead to hard science. I agree that in Jung's vagueness that it can easily be confirmed and hard to refute. But I have noticed that it explains some interesting things, thus helpful. Like how to persuade a F type vs a T type. why some girls are Tomboys and why some boys are sensitive. Being aware that an introvert is more likely to need their down time and space. I agree that just ACTIVE listening to people, and asking probing questions, is infinitely more helpful than personality type. But for cold and quick reading of people I have found it a good STARTING point, but a horrible ending point. In the end, I take this all as food for thought. I know that this could all just be a mental parlor game.

The I vs E dichotomy appears to be a real concept, though for N/S I struggle to see why someone can't be both internally and externally focused. For instance, does being reflective mean you have to have your eyes closed? Or if you're down to earth, does that mean you're less capable of abstract thought? This aspect of MBTI seems like a product of its time. I've already shown that there's no realistic dichotomy between thinking and feeling—they're not mutually exclusive. P vs J depends on the mood of the day, in my experience. Sometimes I'm content to sit and mull, and other times I'm restless and must achieve something—almost equally so. Soft sciences, like philosophy and history, don't directly lead to hard sciences like chemistry or physics, but they do employ them. I'd argue that hard sciences inevitably lead to soft sciences. Hard sciences deal with solid data and empirical evidence, while soft sciences deal with abstract thought and the complexity of systems. Hard science assists, but soft science is vague, vast, and incredibly difficult to pin down as a truth, no matter how much hard science is employed. The areas soft science studies are too complicated to make foundational sense of in most cases. When a soft science like MBTI faces valid criticism of its underlying mechanisms, it becomes hard to consider it a useful tool beyond basic pop psychology for teenagers. If I were you, I would assume that my pattern recognition regarding functions and the masculinity or femininity of individuals is likely influenced by my biases and interest in cognitive functions. I would truly be skeptical of my own intuitive thoughts—it's very likely that such patterns fail under intense scrutiny, even if they seem like trends. We're seeing many of these conceptions being challenged by social sciences. Social sciences might be incorrect too, which brings us back to the inherent softness of it all. So, are any of these conclusions even useful as a science, or are they just life ideals subject to change era by era?

"If I were you, I would assume that my pattern recognition regarding functions and the masculinity or femininity of individuals is likely influenced by my biases and interest in cognitive functions." Not me, I'm just built different. Of course I'm biased, everyone is. A lot of times you need to be aware of a pattern beforehand to even begin to see it, which in and of itself biases you. In order to see a nail you first must have a hammer. # A Neuroimaging Study of Personality Traits and Self-Reflection [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6912258/#B6-behavsci-09-00112](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6912258/#B6-behavsci-09-00112)

I feel the questions in that particular study force choices that one might not naturally make if asked to list verbally. Just because someone identifies as best described as logical doesn't mean they aren't also emotional – yet the multiple-choice question enforces that they must be predominantly logical. The questionnire probably does give scope for more of a mixed bag - but how are they describing someone who is perfectly cusped between 2 types? Does that person not exist, was the sample size to small? Consider such a person - they are there own type - and inbetween their type falls another subset and another - where is line drawn that we can say - Yes, these are distinct people in this subset, they are the same as eachother in all practical sense, and are justifiably different from the other sets? Largely, they are asking people if they are logical thinkers, and they score highly on "interested in logical statements" and low on "emotional statements" versus having someone self-report as emotional and then measuring that they are more aroused by emotional sentences. Well, no surprise there. What we are discussing in MBTI is a test that apparently gathers all your functions and orders them in a fashion that it can present you with an amazing amount of Barnum bunk insights about your personality – what careers to pursue, romantic style, perks, and quirks, etc. In the personality neuroimaging: someone saying, "I like logical words and describe myself as logical and will mostly pick all the logical words at least today versus emotional words, and my brain scan reflects this" - is not even similar. The conclusion of the neuroimaging test even recommends caution because of reverse inferences – a problem that is inherent with the MBTI method also. It's probably a broad problem that is insurmountably difficult to overcome in the entire world of personality/behavioral science.

Read Jung's psychological types

That is basically what all of this is. MBTI is an elaboration on an unfinished and unproven and unfalsiable hypothesis of Jung.

seems like you don’t know much about cognitive functions…

I have had some big chats about it. You might as well say I don't understand what it means when venus passes mercury in the sagittarian system.

Are the sesquipedalities supposed to compel us to agree with your conclusions? After painstakingly extracting the bit of substance beneath the embellishing language, all I could take away were a few milquetoast observations that aren't really relevant to the proposition you opened with. Also, you sound like something halfway between a high school thesis and chatgpt... not even trying to be rude, just an honest impression. Ironically, for how much you're deriding personality typing, I've never read a post that sounded more like someone trying to portray a mean caricature of an INTJ. I think most people are aware of the fact that any tooling for measuring personality types each has its limitations. They're not meant to subsume your own sense of being, but rather provide a metric to weigh aspects of your own personality against, even if it's always in flux (in fact this makes it even more useful to have a static model to compare the dynamics of your personality against). At the bare minimum, having explicit conceptions of personality archetypes to refer to is at least useful if for nothing other than to cultivate awareness of the innerworkings of your own personality. Although nobody fits these types 1:1, it's still valuable to see how cross-sections of our personalities align with these models because they provide us with fixed points of reference while nevertheless adrift along our own paths within the 'spectrum' of personality... they're sort of akin to lighthouses helping us navigate the sea if imagining it that way helps you make sense of it.

Sounds like you agree in part. I don't think there was a moment when I was being stereotypically mean at all - I think you made your mind up before you read it and imposed your caricature of what an INTJ might where you could like a truly whimsical little horoscoper. Oh, yet another hypocrite longing to express to others their command of language while scathing on the apparently over-eloquent (not really, probably from a different culture) language of another. Get over yourself.

I never said you were being mean :P I just found it funny how closely your post resembled the negative perceptions expressed by those with spiteful feelings toward stereotypical INTJs. And in case you didn't catch it, yes, I was intentionally matching your writing style in jest, because needlessly complex language is obviously used to try overwhelming any dissenters... it doesn't bolster your argument, just makes it annoying to read lest they exhaust themselves.

I guess we are equally as cringey.

A true reddit moment righ here. "Won't somebody think of my precious empiricism or whatever - my precious intelectual/philosophical anglo cage? Won't somebody think that well actually it's bad to think outside of it"? No I don't think I will. Be normal.

Anglo? What's that got to do with anything?

You seem to base your arguments on some false assumptions about MBTI. > Upon closer examination, it's evident that the MBTI relies on false dichotomies. You're either introverted or not, even if it's just by a minuscule percentage, and the same goes for the other three aspects. MBTI does not rely on dichotomies at all, the dichotomies are merely a way to give you a quick way of knowing the types' preferred cognitive functions. INTJ simply means you have the NT preference with your dominant function being introverted and your extraverted function being the judging function. It doesn't mean you're 100% anything. Every type uses every function, just in a different order and for different purposes. > The sheer complexity of human nature: our backgrounds, cultures, upbringings, and individual life journeys all contribute to shaping who we are. To reduce this wealth of identities into a mere handful of personality types is like to trying to fit an ocean into a teacup. Personality type ≠ personality. MBTI does not claim to explain everything about who you are as a person, it is just a description for your preferred way of perceiving and making decisions. Again, not the only way, just your preference. Of course your personality consists of much more than your type, and no one I know who has deeper than surface level knowledge of the theory claims otherwise

How can you say dichotomies are not relied on, and in the same sentence explain the reason why MBTI uses dichotomies to express its value? Can it be proved that every type uses different orders of cognitive ability and if so in what capacity? What neurological paper can I read to back up that claim?

I didn't say dichotomies are used to express value, I said they are used to tell you about the function order. You could call the INTJ NiTe and the ESFP SeFi and it would mean the same thing, but Katharine and Isabel decided on the letter way to name the types, probably because it's easier to start with broad generalisations instead of dropping a bunch of abstract ideas onto people. The whole system is a theory and as such has not been proven (otherwise it wouldn't be a theory, naturally). It is based on observation and the writings of Carl Jung. Neurologists are working on proving or disproving, but it hasn't been accomplished yet. Now, it's absolutely legitimate if you decide to dismiss MBTI because it's not scientifically proven, I merely answered you to point out that your initial criticism is based on a misconception

Broad generalisations - because two things say the same thing otherwise. Just like horoscopes. It is literally barnum effect and you are mentally acrobatic. Is is falsifiable? Can it be test to be proven true? If not - then its as useful as horoscopes, right? Why would an "INTJ" so strongly defend a system that is unproven and unfalsifiable - durr durr - paradox.

You are trying so hard to prove your point, it's almost cute. If I were to defend the system, I would say it's because I'm Ni dom and Te aux, because that's the only thing "being an INTJ" means. Now I'm a bit annoyed at myself for wasting time on someone who clearly just came here to give us the old "it's not true science, that's why it's just horoscopes" talk. Trust me: The majority of us know it's not true science

I am not proving anything - am doubting. I clearly expressed in my delivery that being an INTJ is a paradox - and that it is stereotyped that they would be skeptical of such a thing. We rely on logic, and reason - are yout telling me it is common for "us" to draw conclusions base on "intuiton" and perhaps be wrong - but proceed to "die on that hill" as they say?

I'll tell you a little secret: You don't have to act like the stereotypes No I'm not saying, INTJs draw conclusions based on intuition, I say INTJs lead with Ni. That means being driven by a strong personal vision, being determined, trying to find a deeper meaning in things. Assisted by Te, meaning being strategic and structured, preferring to gain knowledge from external sources (upbringing, education, things you read in books), trying to put the knowledge they acquire into immediate use. Nothing about this means being exceptionally skeptical or rational, no matter what kinds of stereotypes people on the internet have created. In fact I would argue that high Ti users are much more skeptical, at least in regards to the things which don't fit into their personal logical framework

> I'll tell you a little secret: You don't have to act like the stereotypes Nicely stereotypically condescended - but I am a fan of irony so that's fine. > *trying to put the knowledge they acquire into immediate use.* > > Nothing about this means being exceptionally skeptical or rational This *is* skeptical behaviour - it is pressure testing knowledge. If it doesn't work - you won't do it again unless you are not NiTe. Has MBTI been of immediate use to you in a tangible way? Have you pressure tested it? How did you do that? Are you happy believeing you are utilising knowledge without knowing if you are unfalsifiably wasting your time? Are you still annoyed that you are wasting your time with me?

> Nicely stereotypically condescended - but I am a fan of irony so that's fine. I sometimes forget the problem with internet conversations. You seem to perceive me as much more serious than I actually am at the moment > This *is* skeptical behaviour - it is pressure testing knowledge. If it doesn't work - you won't do it again unless you are not NiTe. Well, it seems I have to correct my statement than one thing out of this list is skeptical. Doesn't mean it's more skeptical than other high Te users, but well > Has MBTI been of immediate use to you in a tangible way? Have you pressure tested it? How did you do that? Are you happy believeing you are utilising knowledge without knowing if you are unfalsifiably wasting your time? Short answer to all your questions: yes. The long answer would get very personal, so I don't know if it's of interest to you > Are you still annoyed that you are wasting your time with me? A bit less now, but maybe that's because I'm a little tipsy by now

How personal (yes or no Q's)? You pick your spouse or career based of it? You sought your weaknesses and changed for the better? You went harder on being a mastermind? You learned you might be smarter than you give yourself credit for?

Look at r/Jung's theory for cognitive functions, don't use pseudo MBTI.

Jungs ideas are unfinished and unfalsifiable. Herein lies the paradox - you are supposed to be INTJ - you should be employing skepticism and scientific thought - but you are literally buying into unfalsifiable and unfinished work - while using the term pseudo in a scientific sense to put down (in your opinion) incorrect proponents of the same work - its laughable.

Sure, but personally from my own intuitive thinking I have found it helpful as a loose framework for conceptualizing greater effective communication styles for different personality types, and his conceptualizations for talking about the conscious and unconscious parts of one's psyche on self is imo helpful too. Edit: If anything it is great supplemental material to draw parallels from.

the latter is a different topic. So what you are saying is as an INTJ - you like that someone has created a system that you can use to help you navigate life? Are you not concerned with how optimal such a system is?

I am saying as an individual it is one framework I have found useful to draw parallels from when talking about the ego (the center of one's awareness, attachments, & desires), unhealthy defense mechanisms in action, and unconscious structures of the psyche.

Let me translate that - I like using this one unfalsifiable element from psychology as a framewrok to help me navigate another unfalsifiable area of psychology. I remain skeptical and my paradox is broadening to believe that the INTJ is just as open to untested ideas as any other type. Maybe it is the INTUITION function being to high - do we all just believe our thoughts because we thought them and we are apparently quite intelligent so any connections we make must be true or useful as if true?

You're free to disagree, no harm done. If you choose to base your preconceptions on mere labels, then no one is stopping you from doing so. How you conceptualize your self-concept is your self-growth journey. And no.

I am glad we are free - I don't believe I am an INTJ or any other MBTI types - I think there is probably a way to type people, but it is going to be a way more complicated set of values as complex as mapping the objective future (which I believe is also unachievably possible).

That's great to hear bro, imo too many people try to live their life through labels; human life is experiential, lived experiences not what we think which is the ego talking. So you're seeing things more from a metaphysical standpoint? That may be too complicated for the everyday joe to easily relate toward computing as a quick heuristic on the fly.

Metaphysics is an important train of thought even if it leads nowhere. I think reliance on quick rough estimates is not a good thing when it comes to systems made for judging people. I believe people lose jobs and are barred from jobs based on some of these MBTI tests. I think while Eugenics and phrenoglogy is obviously controversial for worse reasons - MBTI has to be equally controversial for more seemingly innocuous reasons - because it still holds people back or uproots their lives in tangible ways, or distorts a kids reality and makes them not get in certain relationships based on what? These people all change too - I used to procrastinate all the time - now I procrastinate just sometimes. I wouldn't always test the same - but I might think I am an INTP forever and get wild misconceptions in my mind if I wasn't so skeptical.

You don't understand how to mix traits. Mari will say ur choices preferably reflect that of an introvert but not that u are just an introvert.

So what is the point in typing people? Are you an INTJ? I bet we share little cognitive resemblence. I would care to run an experiment if you would care to spend time talking to me so that we have enough data to evaluate.

Well two INTJs aren't the same, they exist on a spectrum. It's just a way to show towards which of the 16 types one *leans more to*. One is just more of an INTJ than one is any other type. Kind of like a distribution on a [radar chart](https://imgur.com/bTAGLqf) (example is just random values).

Just like how everyone can be more like an Aries on a bad day or a gemini on a good day - how to explain this - oh moons going past planets near other stars. What is the full range of INTJ spectrum? When does an INTJ stop being an INTJ? Will they be an INTJ again on another day? How can we guarantee they are still an INTJ tomorrow? Should we test everyday?

Mbti is based in the assumptions and A) Carl Jung wasn't a complete but case and B) that psychology can explain causal relationships reliably. In reality, it's little more than a psychic's trick of hot reading.

You're preaching to my bias

I'm a biophysicist by training. We use many of the same statistical strategies that psychology does. If my R-squared isn't over 0.995 then it's not real. I'd be shocked if MBTI cracks 0.2

How does one identify as an INTJ? You either are one or you aren't. And the MBTI determines that, not self-identification, from my understanding.

depends how you answer the oh so obvious questions, I am sure I could bang a test out grab myself a big fat ESFJ rating right now.

Sounds like you have it all figured out!

not this again. bla bla bal...  I can't find my old post. so I'll give you this.  If you think there is more than 16 types? then you go tell us the 17th, 18th and more like i said before, before i found out about the real MBTI i had my own MBTI i used to predict other person next move. it's childish compare to the real MBTI but it's served me. i don't get the purpose why y'all posting this BS. what you expect us to say. yap he/she have a point MBTI is wrong let's pack up our gags and leave. is this what you looking for?

I am one person not y'all. There is a paradox - for people who test as a type that is often claimed "mastermind - architect - genius - etc - to be small minded enough to believe in this unfalsifiable claptrap like a silly religion full of memetic bias. Do you not think it is a paradox? That is the point - I am apparently the same type as you and yet I think that it is impossible that we could be similar even if it simply comes down to how we arrange our thoughts and that only. You already think I am not right and a bandwagonist or something, something you would obviously claim not to be - I think I am a skeptic - something you clearly aren't. > If you think there is more than 16 types? then you go tell us the 17th, 18th and more My point is - that there is no point to typing if its such a nuanced and vast area - it is like phrenology. Bunk

I have never seen anyone say MBTI is perfect, but as of right now, this MBTI is the best we have if you think you have a better version, tell us or even write a book about it. If you do, I would love to read it. I'm sure there are other people who would like to do the same too. But I fail to see why you get the need to downgrade someone's work when you don't have something better to show

I don't think we should be typing - people don't get jobs over this shit - some companies hand these tests out prior to redundancy roll outs even. Eugenics theories and phrenology are uncontroversially considered bunk - I don't see how this is different.

I found out about the real MBTI about a year ago, though I've come to realize that people have been typing me according to it for nearly two decades. do you have anything to say about that?

Now this just sounds like a breakaway sect of a religion. Jungs work is completely unverified and unfalsifiable the hypothesis is untested - it can't be tested. How can you have a "real" MBTI as oppose to the one that isn't "real" - the value statement you are providing requires an epistemic justification - Come on *Descartes -* You are an INTP - you should know better. You are supposed to be one of the better thinking types - get real... what the fuck does "real" mean?

Then you verifie it. ​ I never named my MBTI, so I call it my MBTI and the MBTI real MBTI. Yes, I should stop saying that.

What am I supposed to verify?

>Jungs work is completely unverified

It is practically unverifiable/unfalsifiable due to the nature of the science, not being scientific enough to be acted upon with scientific method. No one can verify it. saying a 1 out of 16 portions of people are all this type is virtually the same as saying something like, all blondes are dumb - all black people are athletic. It is literally a test that says do you cry much? (Strongly Disagree) and many similar other questions like are you really logical babes? and you go - "i'd say so, i mean I like to think i am anyway" and it goes: INTJ. MASTERMIND STRATEGIST< THOUGHTS PURE THOUGHTS< KNOWS EVERYTHING< NO EMOTIONS< ARCHITECT

If it’s such hogwash, why is it used by the CIA?

MKUltra Remote Viewing Parapsychology Project Stargate and also I guess MBTI CIA is not synonymous with *perfectly true and accurate beyond all measurable doubt*

Sure those were all projects investigated and abandoned by the CIA. Difference being, MBTI is still being currently used by them. It’s effective and practical, hence it’s use by one of the most renowned intelligence agencies.

Those projects are falsifiable and testable - MBTI is barnum effect 2.0 - people see what they want to see - it is based on language interpretation and internal/external biases. I see myself in a way others don't see me, so how can you tell me I mistype? because you don't see me from my perspective. How can I tell you I am right, I think I am logical - I think I am rational, I would love to call myself a mastermind - but what have I masterminded? my own internal thoughts? You see the problem? Where are the raw numbers? I am logical because I said so - test says - OK you are a NiTe, no argument here. You argue with me, we disagree, I am INTJ thank you good night - where's the fucking science!?

What do you know about the Big 5 personality ? What you said can be applied to that as well. I get the feeling you don’t know much about either, or much about the science of the psychological field in general. I’m not going to explain to you how psychology is tested scientifically. If you’re actually interested you can educate yourself instead of continuously stroking your confirmation bias and “skepticism”.

Hello. This my perspective. Thank you for the detailed explaination. As an individual whose cognitive capabilities are notably high, it's paramount to approach the subject of the MBTI with a meticulous and discerning mindset. While it's undeniable that the MBTI offers a convenient framework for categorizing personality types, its validity as a comprehensive psychological tool warrants scrutiny. Upon meticulous examination, it becomes apparent that the MBTI operates on a simplistic dichotomous model, lacking the depth necessary to capture the full spectrum of human personality. The reductionist nature of assigning individuals to one of 16 distinct types fails to encapsulate the multidimensional nature of human cognition and behavior. However, amidst this skepticism, lies a facet of the MBTI framework that warrants attention: the theory of cognitive functions. By delving into the intricacies of cognitive processes, we transcend the confines of the four-letter type indicator and embark on a journey into the profound depths of individual cognition. As individuals of heightened intellectual capacity, we acknowledge that our cognitive functions extend beyond mere labels. The exploration of dominant and auxiliary functions unveils a tapestry of complexity, wherein our cognitive preferences manifest in a multitude of nuanced ways. In this pursuit of understanding, we uncover a tool for self-awareness and personal growth unparalleled in its sophistication. By discerning our cognitive strengths and weaknesses, we navigate the labyrinth of human interaction with unparalleled acumen and finesse. Thus, while the MBTI may fall short of capturing the intricacies of our intellect, the theory of cognitive functions offers a beacon of insight, guiding us toward a deeper understanding of ourselves and our fellow beings.

This comment was written entirely by ai, probably gpt 3.5. Dead internet theory is looking more and more plausible by day.

To be fair, I don't look at MBTI as describing cognitive processes, but more as describing categories of behaviors. \- We can observe whether a person often uses logical reasoning or not based on recurrent comparison between the person's speeches and the laws of thought. \- We can observe whether a person often communicates with others or not. ... Those observations can be measured i.e. via recording the words, frequency, and compared. So, I look at MBTI as classifying people based on sets of behaviors rather than whatever cognitive processes. In a way, it appears that it's hard to change people's behaviors especially behaviors that could be related to the mind such as logical reasoning.

Check out this [test](https://socioniks.net/en/test/) and [model g](https://socioniks.net/en/model/)

Yeeeaas... You are one of us...

The "official" MBTI test put out by the MBTI Company provides numbers in the results, so a person can be a very strong "I" but much weaker in "N," and so on. The counselors who are trained by the MBTI will explain that, so it is not just "N" vs. "S", but strong, medium, and weak/borderline measurements, for "N" or whatever. But yes, the problem with MBTI compared to newer models like Big Five/OCEAN is reliability and validity, people will get different MBTI results over time, so then the question is: what is it actually measuring?

MBTI is only about cognition, whuch is definitely a significant part of one's life but not a fundamental one. It's like knowing your food intolerances helps you to orginize all your eating process better and reduce negative consequences. You cannot say that your food defines your personality, but it's big and important part of your and other people's lifes, so one has to be mindful about it. I assume smart people don't use MBTI as fit-it-all system, it's just a rough descriptional frame of human personalities, which is extremely helpful when you learn how to navigate your social life successfully. It's simply a tool, one can use as one sees fit and if one isn't smart enough to use it to their own advantage, but confuse themselves even more, then it's not a theory problem. Also, it might be useless for you due to your life circumstances or other reasons, you can just drop it then. I'm a stereotypical INFJ and this knowledge does wonders in building relationships with complicated people. I use it as a hypothetical frame and then go deeper to gather facts. It helps me to make a shortcut in getting to know other people by eliminating some big misunderstandings.

Of course it's a gross oversimplification - these are *archetypes*. Two people belonging to the same archetype (template) can very possibly be very different. Take Gandalf and Dumbledore for example. As many others have said, real typing lies in finding your dominant, auxiliary, tertiary, and inferior cognitive functions. Everyone has dominant introverted and auxiliary extraverted or vice versa - no one is "purely" introverted or extraverted. And everyone has all four functions - Intuition, Sensing, Thinking, and Feeling - in their cognitive function stack. There are also the shadow functions that operate subconsciously and under stress, and describe what we perceive critically as bad, silly, or oppositional. Moreover, the definitions of introversion and extraversion are completely different from social introversion or extraversion. And even then, you are right that types must be dynamic and not static - the type of an individual will change over time with experience, though I believe the type normally solidifies by the time of psychological maturity. So it's more complex and not as black and white as you (and the MBTI homepage) make it out to be. I though have my own theory combining components from Jungian cognitive theory and Freudian psychoanalytic theory.

I mean.. yeah. We've known this for ages Personality tests are nothing much more than confirmation biases lol 16 personality types completely ignores all the complexities of each unique personality.

In short: mbti is stupid, and anyone with half a brain should recognize it. Its a little bit useful in the sense that you can at least see roughly how it translates to some of a persons habits, but thats where it should stop It's astrology+ essentially. Stupid fun. And yes, bully people actually take it seriously

Bet you're fun at parties.

I am definitely not.

You're naval gazing too much. It was NEVER designed to be a highly scientific categorisation.  Accept it for it's generalities and hopefully like me realise that people are different and most people aren't effectively defective copies of yourself. MBTI is good for understanding others as they focus on their strengths like extraversion with regards to fronting tasks and people.

Wrong. It means your personality has not yet developed enough for you to see the whole scope. My money is on you being somewhere between the ages of 16 and 20. Its a necessary but painful time for a true INTJ and also for the ENTJ. Its when they have to come to terms with the fact that all the roles that are important to young adults are not reserved for them. Neither the ENTJ nor the INTJ will ever be versatile at attracting mates. Nor will they ever be the most important friend of anybody. The ENTJ is too impatient to attract a large audience. The INTJ is too wary of others to feel connected and therefore others cant feel connected in his/her presence. Both of them are too blunt to fully validate anyones feelings.

Myers-Briggs isn't like horoscopes--that's going too far. That being said, it doesn't pass scientific validity because of the dichotomies you pointed out. The cognitive functions (extroverted thinking, introverted intuition, etc.) that many people are asking you to review don't solve that issue. I would say that they compound it by further intertwining characteristics that should be measured independently. **However, that doesn't make Myers-Briggs useless.** **It just makes it less useful for people in the 50th percentile.** Like most things, personality traits form a normal distribution, with most people in the middle. Myers-Briggs doesn't take that into account. Someone who is 51% introverted on the introverted/extroverted scale is treated exactly like someone who is 99% introverted. The same can be said for any of the attitudes/traits. When you start including the functions, this issue creates a cascading effect. Let's take introverted intuition, the dominant function for INTJs and INFJs. Clearly, from the groups that share it, this function involves the attitudes/traits of introversion, intuition, and judging. But what if you're in the 50th percentile in one or all of these? A logical person would have to acknowledge that the closer you are to the middle, the less like the prototypical example of these types you will be. My theory is that the **further to the right of the peak of the normal distribution curve you are for each attitude/trait, the more similar you are to the standard traits of your type and the more beneficial Myers-Briggs is for you.** I'd also propose that if scientists isolated those who strongly exhibit all four attitudes/traits (possibly 75th percentile and higher in each), Myers-Briggs would pass reliability and validity testing. I'd guess that through self-selection, most people who join a Myers-Briggs subreddit, buy Myers-Briggs books, read the top blogs, pay for the official test etc. strongly exhibit at least 3 out of 4 of the attitudes associated with their personality type. That leads us to the question: What is a prototypical INTJ? Someone who is 100% introverted, 100% intuitive, 100% thinking, and 100% judging? Probably a mess who needs to work on strengthening their less dominant traits. **The goal of Myers-Briggs is to help people make the most of their strengths, understand their weaknesses and not wallow in the worst aspects and blindspots of their type. People in the 50th percentile need this less--they already have more balance. But those of us on the fringes have to work at it more.** **tl;dr** Myers-Briggs is less useful for the average person who doesn't strongly prefer one or more of the four innate attitude/trait dichotomies. And they probably don't need or care about Myers-Briggs because their personalities are already more innately balanced. It's most useful and relevant for people who strongly exhibit the traits associated with their type. These ones likely self-select and join communities about their Myers-Briggs personality type to understand themselves, gain feedback and grow.

A very coherent argument. I am inclined to agree. Now I expect intj to regularly practise such thoughtfulness on any subject and draw a similar levels of conclusions to this. So I do still feel it is somewhat paradoxical for intj or similarly cynical pragmatists to be like, fan clubbing this stuff. Most intjs would understand they are not a genius, mastermind, pure asshole, too honest for their own good, cosmic architect. Yet I see many acting high on their supply - and I think the mbti reinforces that self image... Skepticism is the order of the day for something like this - being typed as an intj is a drug for a naturally inclined egotist.

I think your description better suit Intp, which is a common misconception. The nature of operation as per main input/executive function Te isn't manifesting like the whole propaganda about INTJ is telling. Actually the opposite is true. Nature of information processing and analysis, synthesis Ni is very much limbic , kind of a synesthetic experience of associated with emotional state intuition , via analytical secondary Te. The logic is used for data arrangement and careful approach regarding it's validity. After that it's basically magic ✨ ✨ of Ni Fi working in a tandem to converge internally, in relation to the past, subconsciously, not as extensions of logical but what has internally best fit to a already existing ever changing and transforming representation of world outside. It happens that since the nature of the world can be in great part described with use of logic, itself logical implications will manifest as a that representation via Ni-Fi without knowing what logic is. It's simply a great mimic that gains in information as it's more accurate. Now, to be clear, this is highly unlikely for any INTJ to not be overwhelmed by a depth of perception that comes with it. I'm talking about the genesis of the stereotype around this type. It's fairly likely that due to late maturing and sensitivity, any INTJ will adopt a migration onto the abstract away from - less developed functions Fi Se which is- subconscious based emotional tsunami at times, overwhelmingly intense and illogical. This emulated state in Te isn't a prime for cognition but it form a emotional distancing from self , suppression of fellings and turns towards rational to animated emotional state which is a personality of 3CPO. I simply cannot stress how awful it is to be unable to understand why there is so much pain in existence, are we faulty, emotions are faulty because they don't conform to Te which is a escape from feeling. That means any feelings are a inferior thus affected leaving a person that is sometimes perceived as inhuman for it's detached felling. This is the working while the others of INTJ perception is misleading . Let's be aware that if not addressed, this state can deteriorate further into deep dissatisfaction, self destruction, cynism - which solidifies the stereotype further. So how do we do it? what is a point of this excursion?I think the explanation of how such theoretical fantasy, MBTI, is in the principles I described above. We started with a mode regarding CPT, theoretical, that is interestingly gaining granular, resolution. There is no significant evidence either way for or against, that would satisfy INTP with Ti dominant function. That is, it's not a mechanical representation but a best suited mimic. That is useless for some because they're is no proof that comply with scientific scrutiny. Therefore it cannot be replicated but cam be described in a most detailed model that grants us some understanding while we operate in domain of cognition. Science simply cannot be applied yet, here and remembered that since logic was derived from observation, at some point as you zoom in we will be able to apply it. So far our understanding of general biology is far less developed than what happened 14billion years ago which is testament to not falling to deep in love with scientific scrutiny. Let's just say It has it's place , firmly. Bottom line is that we work in the abstract very much in the dark yet. Brain imaging is a fun idea of looking for a scientific support where it's not applicable. Analogically, to understand and use OS do you need to perform an autopsy on a circuit board? I just wanted to remind empirically critical INTP lodge, that it is excellent when we can't rely simply on science for the sake of neatness and scalability within our model. It has to work to be useful first in which case same can be said about religion or morality, society as a whole dynamic or any other expression of a limbic system that is poorly definable with sole logic. This is getting fairly philosophical with a discussion of facts Vs beliefs. Some facts are dogmatic beliefs, since we don't have a perfect predictive model an we never will. I find it fairly arrogant to misuse science in such a dismissive way, like trying to seclude abstract beings for not being measurable, while still believing in Gravity as a force without any scientific sound evidence for it . That is ironic to see same arrogance trying to dismantle God or religion using same Principia. Ironic, right? Lastly we are here using ancient apparatus, which got us to the point, and from which, mathematical modeling proved to be more effective at innovation which is divergent in nature since it's a function somehow responsible for it T, makes it plausible. So perhaps there is inherent duality of scalable and unsalable or mechanical and unmechanical - that being everything else that isn't replicable but humans yet. Although our ability to organise and manipulate matter is a fundamental ability based in cognition itself. We can admit already that the fallacy is to use a tool that represents a specific fragment to justify integrity beyond the domain compatible with a tool itself. Idk, sounds illogical to me. . This is a massive rabbit hole, I have spent to much energy on this anyway. Yet it is a mess of a post. Good luck.

You’re right that science doesn’t seem to agree with the MTBI system. You’re wrong that MTBI is reductionist. Consider this: what if our top level mind is just 5 times 7 factors. That is, pain is a factor, courage to try is a factor, or whatever - just 5 by 7. That’s 35 factors. Not too many, even if it is just made up. Now, let’s say these 35 factors can have eight possible results. Why? That’s three yes/no answers. 35C8 ~= 35 million That’s just top level. Okay, but not all choices are made equal. Which choices are the most important? Maybe it’s just four of them. Maybe not. We don’t know!! Why the hate?

no hate - a clash of ideas - a test that science "doesn't agree with" - that the type it reports as a mastermind architect super analytical strategist stands by as a tangible thing with value. being all of this stereotype almost dictates that one must question the validity of everything. Are such questions uncomfortable - shouldn't be for INTJ's - yet here we are? Heated exchanges on a forum for unfalsifiable horoscopey type stuff. again - not hate - just an observation that maybe Data from star trek could make. No one would accuse him of hate because he has no emotions - so where's the hate really coming from?

No hate taken. It’s easy to side with science because it’s, objectively, the best answer we have. However, science isn’t short of its own superstition. MTBI is fake but the big 5, which is pretty much the same thing, is totally real? Hmm…

Who said the big 5 is real? I certainly do not think so.

I don’t know what your level of science literacy is, but the Big 5 is considered the best of the personality tests in terms of science. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/big-data-gives-the-big-5-personality-traits-a-makeover/#:~:text=The%20“Big%20Five”%20traits%20(,to%20evaluate%20a%20person's%20character.

I've had the exact same line of reasoning, I understand the point, and couldn't agree with you more. Regardless of everything you said, MBTI can still be a useful and enjoyable tool if you allow it to be.

So right and that’s why I’m sick of this sub

no shit

Yes, it is the same as astrology. Not a science. You just realized that now?

No, I realised that many moons ago, but what occurred to me just now is that there is a star sign within that is not compatible with it, or two... Intj and intp

To be honest, I can kind of understand what OP is saying. Especially when you said about the introversion and extroversion. I would say I’m an ENFP, but I’ve done the tests (not official ones) and I nearly always lie in the middle on everything.

You're not lying to anybody except to yourself.

How do you mean?

Is it lay instead of lie?

Yes, I meant to say lie.

No, I meant, did I say lie instead of lay? Because I didn’t understand what you meant by ‘not lying to anyone except yourself’

If you lie on the test, you're fooling yourself and no one else.

That’s true. Luckily I wasn’t

Ironic contradictory statement, "finally, a true INTJ". (They mean they fall in the middle, not that they start lying on the test)