PDA

View Full Version : MBTI Abuse



s0978
13 Feb 2008, 10:56 PM
Misconceptions and misapplications of MBTI abound, and the theory can be reduced to something like astrology, as if it were some neato fortune telling device which could explain and predict anyone's behavior.

It happens right here, in INTPcity.


Not to shame anyone, but examples would be productive, so here are some from today:

INTP and Nature: (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=27915) Assumes we don't have or exercise other functions besides dominant and auxiliary. Yes, INTPs can enjoy nature.

INTP/J and Clothes: (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=25297) Assumes all and any details about a person points to his/her type. No, we can't type your campus crush based on his attire.

are most "P" not suited for office jobs? (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=25297): Overstating and overgeneralizing on implications of a preference. Being a P isn't like getting a doctor's note for skipping out of office jobs.


Discuss. What other ways are we abusing MBTI on our forum?

Ptah
13 Feb 2008, 11:00 PM
Discuss. What other ways are we abusing MBTI on our forum?

By distending it into prescriptive realms, as opposed to descriptive? Not saying all prescriptive theories which follow from MBTI are necessarily "abuse", but... it is one characteristic, perhaps among others, common in cases of "abuse"?

MacGuffin
13 Feb 2008, 11:04 PM
I believe the biggest abuse is rigid thinking. That MBTI are 16 neat little boxes to organize people in. You'd think INTPs wouldn't be subject to such binary thinking, but there ya go.

I also see causation/correlation abuse. "My room is messy cause I'm a P." There may a correlation, but its not the cause. Your room is messy cause you are lazy, or organization isn't a high priority. That it isn't a high priority may be influenced by being a P, but it is not the cause. Plenty of Ps are organized, and plenty of Js are messy.

xNTP
13 Feb 2008, 11:06 PM
You mentioned a good one, which is using your personality to justify your own shortcomings.

On a slightly different note, I think the big problem with MBTI is that it makes you think that personality really divides into these discrete categories, as if when you were born, either by genetic or divine providence, every person is assigned 4 letters that are relatively immutable. First, personality can be divided and understood on infinite dimensions of preference. They're just different ways of parcing reality, but the divisions are artificial. It's the same problem people make with moral objectivity, confusing the map for the territory. Yuck (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=25889).

Ptah
13 Feb 2008, 11:10 PM
I also see causation/correlation abuse. "My room is messy cause I'm a P." There may a correlation, but its not the cause. Your room is messy cause you are lazy, or organization isn't a high priority. That it isn't a high priority may be influenced by being a P, but it is not the cause. Plenty of Ps are organized, and plenty of Js are messy.

Excellent.

Additionally; I find that I tend to forget, when it comes to real people, there are degrees to each letter of the type when it comes to ruminating on a type as a means to abstract about the person. That is, not every I, N, T, or P is the same degree, etc. Thereby, even descriptive measures come apart in many cases?

LowEnd
13 Feb 2008, 11:15 PM
Shunting random mentions of emotion as being too F.
I'm not pointing the finger at everyone here, but it does happen. MBTI is the way in which we deal with and use emotions. Being INTP doesn't mean you don't or shouldn't have/use emotion in certain circumstances. As INTPs, we try to step back from emotion as we see it as a weakness, but that only means it is our weakness, not that emotion is weak/lame. In any case, in this place people tend to use F as a derogatory term, blanketing anyone on the planet with a dominant F as being, in some way, 'less', than other types, as if they are completely incapable of thinking.

xNTP
13 Feb 2008, 11:17 PM
I also see causation/correlation abuse. "My room is messy cause I'm a P." There may a correlation, but its not the cause. Your room is messy cause you are lazy, or organization isn't a high priority. That it isn't a high priority may be influenced by being a P, but it is not the cause. Plenty of Ps are organized, and plenty of Js are messy.

I would add that the causation is confused here. The reason your room is messy is not because you're a P. The reason you define yourself as a P is because your room is messy. I know this is more cocntroversial, but if P is descriptive, the letter itself has no causal potential. The P can't CAUSE things to happen. The things happen, and we describe ourselves accordingly. I'm not logical BECAUSE I'm a T; I self-describe as a T because I'm logical.

Ptah
13 Feb 2008, 11:19 PM
You mentioned a good one, which is using your personality to justify your own shortcomings.

In spirit I agree. But it's a fuzzy issue to me when I think more closely on it.

On the one hand, I don't like it when people hide behind things as a way of excusing themselves from their personal responsibility; ie, "I couldn't help myself" when they damn well could have. I can see how MBTI could be abused as such.

But on the other, I admit to finding that on the table when someone comes along and accuses me of being unemotional (or launches other stereotypical attacks on my character, such as might fit the profile of INTP generally). For instance, (to use a banal but IRL often enough example, sorry) someone says to me "don't have you have any feelings?". To which I might say, "of course I do, but I'm not prone to show them in the frequency or manner you expect -- I'm a Rational." (I'll add the last part if I know they know MBTI).

Right there, is this justificaction arising from a prescription within me ("I must not have emotions as such, I'm rational!": I certainly don't see it that way), or is it a valid descriptional reference -- "look, I can't fly, I don't have wings."?

:think:

s0978
13 Feb 2008, 11:34 PM
Yuck (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=25889).

oh yep, I remember. I started this thread more in the light of it might be useful to have something like a taxonomy of the ways MBTI gets misconstrued here.

How J of me!

Ptah
13 Feb 2008, 11:46 PM
oh yep, I remember. I started this thread more in the light of it might be useful to have something like a taxonomy of the ways MBTI gets misconstrued here.


What, so we can use it as a reference, like an anti-playbook or something?

Whap! "Excuse me, you've abused MBTI according to the definitions set forth in posts W, X and Y, summarized in Z, thereafter incorporated into the articles of proper discussion form on INTPc. Shame on you."

:p

xNTP
13 Feb 2008, 11:53 PM
In spirit I agree. But it's a fuzzy issue to me when I think more closely on it.

On the one hand, I don't like it when people hide behind things as a way of excusing themselves from their personal responsibility; ie, "I couldn't help myself" when they damn well could have. I can see how MBTI could be abused as such.

But on the other, I admit to finding that on the table when someone comes along and accuses me of being unemotional (or launches other stereotypical attacks on my character, such as might fit the profile of INTP generally). For instance, (to use a banal but IRL often enough example, sorry) someone says to me "don't have you have any feelings?". To which I might say, "of course I do, but I'm not prone to show them in the frequency or manner you expect -- I'm a Rational." (I'll add the last part if I know they know MBTI).

Right there, is this justificaction arising from a prescription within me ("I must not have emotions as such, I'm rational!": I certainly don't see it that way), or is it a valid descriptional reference -- "look, I can't fly, I don't have wings."?

:think:

You're right; it's tricky. There're a few issues flying around here.

1. Does being a rational make you unemotional? No, because your identification with the rational type is BASED on the fact that you don't effuse emotion. Saying that your type CAUSES you to be unemotional is circular and meaningless. There are other things that caused you to favor logic deduction over emotional displays, but it's not your type. Those things are in your history, upbringing, and maybe genetics, too. The obvious response is that, like you said, "I have certain dispositions that I collectively call 'NT' that explain my behavior." *

2. Second question: do those dispositions justify behavior? When the behavior needs justification, then I don't think dispositions justify behavior, but they do explain it. In your case of not displaying emotions, I would question whether that's really a shortcoming that needs justification or not.**





* That made seem obvious, but I run into so many posts that seem to make this mistake. Maybe it was my misreading, but I don't think so.
** When we really get down to it, I think justification is a personal thing only, in the sense that blame is only useful when a person analyzes his own behavior while seeking to correct it, but not so much for analyzing the behavior of others which is better accomplished but assessing the causes of the behavior, attitude, etc. It's an idea I'm toying with.

xNTP
13 Feb 2008, 11:54 PM
How J of me!

LOL, I almost missed that.

I'm such an S. :stupid:

Ptah
13 Feb 2008, 11:57 PM
1. Does being a rational make you unemotional? No, because your identification with the rational type is BASED on the fact that you don't effuse emotion. Saying that your type CAUSES you to be unemotional is circular and meaningless. There are other things that caused you to favor logic deduction over emotional displays, but it's not your type. Those things are in your history, upbringing, and maybe genetics, too. The obvious response is that, like you said, "I have certain dispositions that I collectively call 'NT' that explain my behavior."

Agreed. Type is not causal, nor prescriptive. It is descriptive, a pattern.


Second question: do those dispositions justify behavior? When the behavior needs justification, then I don't think dispositions justify behavior, but they do explain it. In your case of not displaying emotions, I would question whether that's really a shortcoming that needs justification or not.

Sorry. Properly put, "justification" gets tricky/subjective, etc. My bad. Should have found a better wording.

Martoon
14 Feb 2008, 12:03 AM
They're just different ways of parcing reality, but the divisions are artificial.

You spelled "parsing" incorrectly. It's clear that you're not an NT.

Elm
14 Feb 2008, 12:28 AM
But on the other, I admit to finding that on the table when someone comes along and accuses me of being unemotional (or launches other stereotypical attacks on my character, such as might fit the profile of INTP generally). For instance, (to use a banal but IRL often enough example, sorry) someone says to me "don't have you have any feelings?". To which I might say, "of course I do, but I'm not prone to show them in the frequency or manner you expect -- I'm a Rational." (I'll add the last part if I know they know MBTI).

Right there, is this justificaction arising from a prescription within me ("I must not have emotions as such, I'm rational!": I certainly don't see it that way), or is it a valid descriptional reference -- "look, I can't fly, I don't have wings."?

:think:
INTPs are not unemotional. That's one of the "myths" that really annoys me. They are just incredibly private in revealing their emotions.

Their feeling function is extroverted, which means their natural judging preference is to assess - both - whether something is logical over a long time horizon and how the consequences will play out - and - how something will impact on people and how people will respond. They are quite concerned and responsible about the impact of their behaviours and decisions on others. "Responsibility" and "service" are important words.

Where they struggle, especially when younger, is in making good judgements based on what their own feelings are and how this affects their happiness. But this is also a challenge which other Ti- Fe types experience. How to make others happy and not make yourself unhappy as a consequence. When Fi is the shadow and not the natural preference.

The thing is that it's hard to be good at both - Fe and Fi. The function becomes the most developed for the Ti Fe types is Fe. And this shows up in the way that they make pretty good managers of people.

s0978
14 Feb 2008, 01:04 AM
What, so we can use it as a reference, like an anti-playbook or something?

Actually, yes. We have always kicked around the idea of some sort of n00b guide, a FAQ, and/or some library of stock responses to topics which come up repeatedly. We just always kick it around. And some stuff happens over and over and over again. And, so, I was, um, thinking about doing something about it.

s0978
14 Feb 2008, 02:12 AM
Few posts split to MBTI Revisited (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=27932).

Ptah
14 Feb 2008, 05:42 AM
Actually, yes. We have always kicked around the idea of some sort of n00b guide, a FAQ, and/or some library of stock responses to topics which come up repeatedly. We just always kick it around. And some stuff happens over and over and over again. And, so, I was, um, thinking about doing something about it.

Nice. I'm all for it. As a relative n00b myself, I'd love the reference. Redundancy hurts. (Is that an INTP trait, or am I exhibiting "abuse" for the reference? :think:)

Ptah
14 Feb 2008, 05:47 AM
I just want to say -

I think there is something to be said for MBTI (well, technically, I mean Keirsey's types; I find ... problems ... with the ins and outs of MBTI), as a descriptive mechanism that aids people in comnig to understand one another. Personally, I've found it invaluable; I've developed ways to "type" people IRL, and I use that to have more quality interactions with them, such as is necessary. By that I mean, I can make educated guesses as to what they may or may not tend toward in the broad strokes of their value-system, interests, etc -- and in reference to them, I find it very useful in achieving clearer, smoother communication. For instance, I wouldn't use the same argument, choice of words, etc with an SJ as I would an NT -- experience has proven out that types respond to certain appeals, styles, subjects, etc differently.

Would this be considered an "abuse" of MBTI? In this sense, I suppose I admit I am taking MBTI in a certain prescriptive sense, although not as I apply it to reckoning myself. :think:

Works
14 Feb 2008, 05:51 AM
I think the biggest abuse of MBTI on our forum would have to be the guys and girls who come on the forum and complain about how they can't find love or don't relate to the the opposite sex because their type makes them withdrawn and introspective. My favorite example: here (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=27491).

Pan
14 Feb 2008, 08:27 AM
Two that stand out to me, one already identified:

1) Laziness: MBTI is a great way to identify or confirm your general strengths and weaknesses - and find comfort by self-identifying with a group of similarly constituted people. If you go on to try to utilize those strengths more effectively (a la the Hustler program) or attempt to address the weaknesses (Park's flirting thread, for example), then you are using MBTI in a positive way. If you use it as an excuse to stay on the couch, then you're definitely misusing it.

2) INTP-centrism: Realizing that the different types generate things like self-esteem from different sources was one of the biggest revelations of MBTI for me, and it can be a key to understanding other people - IF you recognize the basic truth that different isn't wrong. Yeah, it kind-a sucks that the other types don't "get" us because of fundamental differences in thought and values. But they generally don't and they're not obligated to - any more than we're obligated to understand them. You can't legitimately complain about others not appreciating your values while simultaneously dismissing theirs.

bluebell
14 Feb 2008, 08:46 AM
What other ways are we abusing MBTI on our forum?

The threads which essentially say 'ESTJs* all suck because I know this one ESTJ and she's such a bitch/he's such a bastard'.

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=22218

I'm slightly guilty of this in that thread too, although I was only complaining about one in particular (I should have made that clearer though).



* replace with any non-INTP type

s0978
14 Feb 2008, 09:02 AM
The threads which essentially say 'ESTJs* all suck because I know this one ESTJ and she's such a bitch/he's such a bastard'.

yeah, but the one ESTJ I know sucks hard too.

kiddin, just kiddin. mostly.

Jennywocky
14 Feb 2008, 03:26 PM
yeah, but the one ESTJ I know sucks hard too.


Naw, they suck.

Actually, I have a lot of respect for ESTJs, much as I would admire the work of mass serial killers even if I didn't believe in anything they stood for. They're quite sensible, practical, competent, and efficient... and relentless. I love to watch them work.

To be honest, I'm sort of burning out on MBTI. I'm tired of all the things you describe... or simply having type become a question of people's personal preferences:

"Which type do you think would best enjoy reading a book while on horseback in a rainforest?" or "Which type is most apt to make up silly poetry while enjoying eating blueberry/strawberry crepes for lunch?"

rhinosaur
14 Feb 2008, 03:28 PM
Naw, they suck.

Actually, I have a lot of respect for ESTJs, much as I would admire the work of mass serial killers even if I didn't believe in anything they stood for. They're quite sensible, practical, competent, and efficient... and relentless. I love to watch them work.

To be honest, I'm sort of burning out on MBTI. I'm tired of all the things you describe... or simply having type become a question of people's personal preferences:

"Which type do you think would best enjoy reading a book while on horseback in a rainforest?" or "Which type is most apt to make up silly poetry while enjoying eating blueberry/strawberry crepes for lunch?"

ISTJ and ENFP!

I admire the ESTJ ability to not waste a single minute of time.

panda
16 Feb 2008, 01:43 AM
alimentative symbols (http://www.thechangeworks.com/dynennbook/dyenn2browse2.html)

focused on the Enneagram, but apposite

Park
5 Mar 2008, 02:03 AM
Bluebell recently brought up a phase she named the "Ohh, that's sooo me" phase.

MBTI was in many ways an eyeopener for me but I wonder if it, in a certain period of time, was just as much an eyecloser.
I think many people take the test and immediately identify so much with their testresult that they take the stereotype description and replace it with parts of their selfperception. And as such, MBTI can easily obtain a quality similar to "the words of god".

The biggest problem I see in this context is that selfperception/stances/attitudes creates habits or Si
As far as I can tell, Si involves mental models but of processes - not ideas or concepts.


Perhaps it's:
ISTJ - The Duty Fulfillers: constantly checking their models of processes to see what needs to be done now.

E.g. my parents geave me an attitude/stance towards dental care. Consequently, I brush my teeth every morning before I leave the house. It's not something I have to think about, it's an automatical behaviour, a habit.

I think it's fine to go through the "ohh, that's soo me phase" and it's natural to become exited about a new theory. However, I can see some potential problematic habits or "models of processes" derived from some of the following twisted stereotype interpretations I've seen around here:

I=I'm antisocial
N=The sensor world don't have a value
T=Decisions based on feelings don't have a value.
P=I'm open <----the irony

hexapus
6 Mar 2008, 08:40 AM
I believe the biggest abuse is rigid thinking. That MBTI are 16 neat little boxes to organize people in.
I agree. And then you see people trying to emulate the stereotypes that their MBTI type is connected to. And also some people adopt superiority streaks to defend themselves from the wounding feelings of being looked down as freaks, nerds, etc.

indie
6 Mar 2008, 09:44 AM
Good topic. s0523.

I think probably one of the most frequent instances of "MBTI Abuse" is presuming that INTP = anything other than, well, INTP. There's absolutely no causal correlation that INTPism indicates anything (for example) regarding physical traits, eye color, height, gender, sexual preference, or even intelligence.

However, our INTP-istic tendencies to find interesting things and potential causal correlations . . . well, that could be debated. At least so far in my opine regarding things of the interesting nature goes.

zhandao
6 Mar 2008, 11:40 AM
I think it's fine to go through the "ohh, that's soo me phase" and it's natural to become exited about a new theory. However, I can see some potential problematic habits or "models of processes" derived from some of the following twisted stereotype interpretations I've seen around here:

I=I'm antisocial
N=The sensor world don't have a value
T=Decisions based on feelings don't have a value.
P=I'm open <----the ironyI'm honestly surprised that so many "INTPs" accept that they are INTPs with so little hesitation.

Oculus Sinister
6 Mar 2008, 03:11 PM
That is life. People should shut up and suck it up or get a new job. Be their own boss if they don't want to work somewhere where there is a manager.

MacGuffin
6 Mar 2008, 03:53 PM
There's absolutely no causal correlation that INTPism indicates anything (for example) regarding physical traits, eye color, height, gender, sexual preference, or even intelligence.
I'll disagree with the last one.

There is some evidence out there to correlate intelligence to type. Not a rule, mind you. Just a correlation.

indie
6 Mar 2008, 04:53 PM
I'll disagree with the last one.

There is some evidence out there to correlate intelligence to type. Not a rule, mind you. Just a correlation.

Cookies!

Sorry, I forgot to insert the "but it's highly probable that INTPs are definitely smarter than all the other types" disclaimer.

Finally, something upon which everybody here would tend to agree. ;)

Rincon
11 Mar 2008, 01:13 AM
Another "abuse" (more like misconception, but still): treating one's type as a diagnosis rather than just a description within the context of a particular system.

I think that the diagnosis mentality leads to many of the other abuses described in this thread, one of the more popular being "it's like a disease-- I can't do anything about, so the world is going to have to adapt to me instead".

kuranes
12 Mar 2008, 06:01 PM
In any case, in this place people tend to use F as a derogatory term

I agree. Types are used as cudgels here sometimes, vs. guides. This also doesn't take into account MBTI Step II.

http://www.myersbriggs.org/using-type-as-a-professional/mbti-step-ii/mbti-step-ii-form-q.asp

Toonia
12 Mar 2008, 06:45 PM
Another MBTI abuse is typing people based on personal assumptions concerning type and using that to reinforce prejudices about types. It becomes circular reasoning. It's a way to try to avoid getting hurt by categorizing the type of person who causes that personal hurt.

Most people have not taken an MBTI test and very few (myself included) have taken a "real" test. These little online tests are not definitive and can lead to misconceptions. Some of the online test questions are poorly designed. Questions like "I get emotional when watching soap operas" are nearly meaningless. One must choose whether to answer the question as it is or second guess the actual intent of the question. It's just that much worse to type with personal observation when fewer still are actually qualified to conclude with consistent accuracy.


I'll disagree with the last one.

There is some evidence out there to correlate intelligence to type. Not a rule, mind you. Just a correlation.
I would agree with that because intelligence is also a relative, fluid concept which is at times arbitrarily defined. Intelligence is typically defined by context - how efficiently one mind works in relation to other minds (IQ tests). The concept of intelligence tends to be based on the values of a society and those traits needed to survive in that society. When intelligence is defined along certain parameters, then it will be associated with a specific skill set.

zhandao
15 Mar 2008, 11:13 PM
Most people have not taken an MBTI test and very few (myself included) have taken a "real" test.What are the questions on the real MBTI like? From what little I've heard, I thought they didn't seem to be much better designed than some of the better online tests.

Titania
16 Mar 2008, 01:02 AM
I'll disagree with the last one.

There is some evidence out there to correlate intelligence to type. Not a rule, mind you. Just a correlation.Yes, but correlation is always always always over populations, and it takes relatively few people out of a large sample size to constitute strong correlation.

So, you can say things like "If you have 100 intuitives, their average IQ will be higher than 100 sensors" but you can't promise with very good certainty that if you randomly compared two people from each pool, even if you did it many times, that the Ns would be remarkably higher. Correlation, until it gets really uncommonly strong, fails to say much of anything about individuals.

And then you get into the problem of non-random self selection (us!) and the sort of people who give a shit about this sort of thing (us!), and any correlation found just flies out the window.

bluebell
16 Mar 2008, 01:21 AM
Yes, but correlation is always always always over populations, and it takes relatively few people out of a large sample size to constitute strong correlation.

So, you can say things like "If you have 100 intuitives, their average IQ will be higher than 100 sensors" but you can't promise with very good certainty that if you randomly compared two people from each pool, even if you did it many times, that the Ns would be remarkably higher. Correlation, until it gets really uncommonly strong, fails to say much of anything about individuals.

And then you get into the problem of non-random self selection (us!) and the sort of people who give a shit about this sort of thing (us!), and any correlation found just flies out the window.

I've been thinking about intelligence and S vs N for a while. (and I don't want to derail this into yet another 'define intelligence' thread *yawn*)

I've noticed that I tend to assume being able to see the big picture and undercurrents is intelligence, ie my personal assumption is biased towards Ns and perhaps STPs. But then an ISFJ friend of mine can totally kick my ass at maths, and her writing skills are waaaay better than mine. But I keep forgetting that cos she doesn't look at the big picture much, and only thinks about geeky things at work, never for fun.

mmortal03
29 Mar 2008, 03:46 PM
You mentioned a good one, which is using your personality to justify your own shortcomings.

Well, it can be abuse if you do it for self pity. "Justify" was your key word, and I agree with that. Just don't confuse reality with justification. Some things about us ARE actually shortcomings, and it is healthy to identify and own up to these things. Then we can do something about these things to improve the deficit, and nothing was wrong with realizing them. But making excuses for them should only be allowed for the short term for things that are out of our control. For the long term, either we make success for ourselves by finding something that sidesteps these shortcomings, or we actually fix the deficit. We shouldn't just sit and pout.

jason_m
18 May 2008, 03:23 AM
I think there are a lot of fallacies surrounding the MBTI. I'm an INXP, perhaps an INFP, and my pet peeve is the notion that thinkers are more "rational" than feelers. Does the fact that I might cry at a movie mean that I'm not capable of logical thought? I've read the book "Gifts Differing," and they had some data about the self-selection rates of the types for various college majors and careers. The self-selection rate for INFPs and INFJs for those majoring in science at Cal-Tech was nearly as high as the rate for INTPs and INTJs. Their rate of self-selection was higher than the STs and ETs (even the ENTs, who are supposedly "rationals" and are adept at science and technology). If feelers aren't "logical," then why is it that they can pursue science (one of the most logical fields) at one of the country's best universities, at a greater rate than those who are supposedly more logical than them? Some of this has to do with Keirsey, who has claimed that NTs are adept at science and technology, NFs are adept at the liberal arts, etc. There might be a slight tendency for this, but it certainly isn't as clear-cut as he makes it out to be.

Jason

MacGuffin
18 May 2008, 07:29 AM
I think there are a lot of fallacies surrounding the MBTI. I'm an INXP, perhaps an INFP, and my pet peeve is the notion that thinkers are more "rational" than feelers. Does the fact that I might cry at a movie mean that I'm not capable of logical thought? I've read the book "Gifts Differing," and they had some data about the self-selection rates of the types for various college majors and careers. The self-selection rate for INFPs and INFJs for those majoring in science at Cal-Tech was nearly as high as the rate for INTPs and INTJs. Their rate of self-selection was higher than the STs and ETs (even the ENTs, who are supposedly "rationals" and are adept at science and technology). If feelers aren't "logical," then why is it that they can pursue science (one of the most logical fields) at one of the country's best universities, at a greater rate than those who are supposedly more logical than them? Some of this has to do with Keirsey, who has claimed that NTs are adept at science and technology, NFs are adept at the liberal arts, etc. There might be a slight tendency for this, but it certainly isn't as clear-cut as he makes it out to be.

Jason

Admit it.

You copied this straight out of the Restatement of Obvious, 2nd Ed.

Ponderous
18 May 2008, 08:16 AM
Admit it.

You copied this straight out of the Restatement of Obvious, 2nd Ed.

Reminds me, my copy is becoming worn. Time to get the current edition.

mmortal03
18 May 2008, 12:19 PM
I think there are a lot of fallacies surrounding the MBTI. I'm an INXP, perhaps an INFP, and my pet peeve is the notion that thinkers are more "rational" than feelers. Does the fact that I might cry at a movie mean that I'm not capable of logical thought?

I am taking a course discussing the cognitive bases of emotion right now, and in it, emotions are basically being described as just as much memory/experience/decision-making-based as other forms of thinking, the difference being that the cases where they arise aren't completely consciously controllable.

I would argue that, yes, of course, people who generally tend more toward emotional thinking instead of rational thinking when making decisions could still think logically or rationally when they need to, however, many haven't developed their rational sense very well, and, one could make the argument that whatever unconscious processes that are bringing emotional reasoning to the surface are things that may not anymore have an evolutionarily beneficial result when followed in modern situations.

jason_m
23 May 2008, 06:10 AM
Admit it.

You copied this straight out of the Restatement of Obvious, 2nd Ed.

Boy, that's constructive. Do you ever have anything nice to say?

Jason

MacGuffin
23 May 2008, 01:26 PM
Boy, that's constructive. Do you ever have anything nice to say?

Jason

Yes: stop signing your posts.

jason_m
24 May 2008, 02:14 AM
Yes: stop signing your posts.

Why? What difference does it make? (I notice that no one else here signs there posts, but I don't care; I never give in to the crowd.)

Jason

Edit: And by the way, what is your excuse for being so rude and nasty - your "type" made you do it? If that's the case, as was illustrated in this thread, since when does type become an excuse for unacceptable behaviour? Does that mean I can get into a car accident, because I had my head in the clouds and it wasn't my fault - my personality made me do it? Put yourself in my shoes. How would you like it if someone picks on you for no good reason? Even most ten-year-olds know how to treat others with respect.

MacGuffin
24 May 2008, 06:16 AM
Why? What difference does it make? (I notice that no one else here signs there posts, but I don't care; I never give in to the crowd.)

Jason

Edit: And by the way, what is your excuse for being so rude and nasty - your "type" made you do it? If that's the case, as was illustrated in this thread, since when does type become an excuse for unacceptable behaviour? Does that mean I can get into a car accident, because I had my head in the clouds and it wasn't my fault - my personality made me do it? Put yourself in my shoes. How would you like it if someone picks on you for no good reason? Even most ten-year-olds know how to treat others with respect.

I was just making a joke. Then I was just messing with you for not having a sense of humor.

You probably won't like it here.

jason_m
24 May 2008, 06:33 AM
I was just making a joke. Then I was just messing with you for not having a sense of humor.

You probably won't like it here.

Okay, I apologize. I misinterpreted the situation. I'm sorry. In the future, feel free to crack a joke at me. I promise that I won't take it personally.

Jason

SolitaryWalker
28 May 2008, 03:28 AM
Confusion between type and personality. Type is an unconscious tendency, a Thinker is one who unconsciously gravitates more towards rationalization of perceptions rather than emotionalization and not one who has the personality quality of being logical. Works of our recent populist David Keirsey are a striking example of this phenomenon. I need not further expound on this claim as all that needs to be known about this matter is evinced in my profiles, especially in disclaimers preceeding each one of them.

zago
28 May 2008, 07:53 AM
Misconceptions and misapplications of MBTI abound, and the theory can be reduced to something like astrology, as if it were some neato fortune telling device which could explain and predict anyone's behavior.

It happens right here, in INTPcity.


Not to shame anyone, but examples would be productive, so here are some from today:

INTP and Nature: (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=27915) Assumes we don't have or exercise other functions besides dominant and auxiliary. Yes, INTPs can enjoy nature.

INTP/J and Clothes: (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=25297) Assumes all and any details about a person points to his/her type. No, we can't type your campus crush based on his attire.

are most "P" not suited for office jobs? (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=25297): Overstating and overgeneralizing on implications of a preference. Being a P isn't like getting a doctor's note for skipping out of office jobs.


Discuss. What other ways are we abusing MBTI on our forum?

Sure, but I really wish all the people at my job knew some MBTI. Then they might understand that I am not trying to be aloof and awkward, I am just slow to warm up to people.