thread viewer @ iris


back to topic

Adolf Hitler

530 fg 3d4044d6 on 2018/05/15 (Tuesday) 04:44:10

i don't see how this man could be seen as a T (Te or Ti), beyond the "ah he is a bastard he must be a T". this guy his motivated by his feeling and lacked of logic (so not a Ti dom or aux) and was a poor strategist (weakTe). ISFP is more probable for him than INFP, his focus on Nazi aesthetics and his impulsive nature is more Se than Ne.


531 EON f1cfe7ee on 2018/05/15 (Tuesday) 06:31:59

T types are perfectly capable of being dumb, so him being a poor strategist doesn't prove anything.

He relied on inspiration/insight more than logic or human considerations, which would make him perception focused.

He took the most ruthless methods to achieve his goals: to ensure the survival of his nation by eliminating its percieved enemies and gaining territories. Not sure how is this F at all. Ruthless focus on goals above basic empathy is T. The problem is F had ended up meaning "irrational" or "charismatic", thus Hitler as F.

The day Hitler would be seen as T is the day the MBTI community will manage to think straight again.


532 edza 88aaabaf on 2018/05/15 (Tuesday) 07:41:12

I wish there was a way to vote IxxP.

"I follow my course with the precision and security of a sleep-walker." - Hitler


533 fg 3d4044d6 on 2018/05/15 (Tuesday) 08:26:20

i did not said that he was dumb but his intelligence was based on understanding of germany people's feeling and he use it, instead of rational intelligence(like strategy or problem solving). being ruthless does not mean being a T. Hitler's project was not based on his nation's interest why he would attack Russia if it was his objective(and if it is he is was not enough methodic to do it)


537 EON f1cfe7ee on 2018/05/15 (Tuesday) 10:06:51

One could argue every politician who ever won president "understood his people", but that doesn't make them all F.

Hitler was a case of the right man at the wrong time, he didn't manipulated an entire nation's minds and turned them all into racists and war-mongers; anti-semitism was already there.

Hitler was a great speaker, not someone who read people's minds. 

He attacked Russia because he was a megalomaniac.


538 fg 3d4044d6 on 2018/05/15 (Tuesday) 10:13:48

i agree with your comment about anti semitism and hitler's place on history

not every politician win because he understand people, it can be party dynamic, or because he convinced people with reasonable argument, or just because the people was against the precedent candidate. Hitler only used passion .


1429 Sleeper 00ee22aa on 2018/06/22 (Friday) 21:12:21

Guess Trump isn't literally Hitler then...


1430 Dollar Shave Club One Wipe Scottys cc04e958 on 2018/06/22 (Friday) 22:04:37

Russian trolls don't have a type


6193 fg 3d4044d6 on 2019/05/30 (Thursday) 08:20:00

he was not J at all . he was very lazy, spend most of his time of ruling at watching movies, was very impredictible, a lot of the third reich's doing are his  comment in private interpreted by his high ranked follower in a more "professional way", he did not even plan to make a jude extermination at first, at the start he planned to deport them but he saw that was too much complicated so he choosed to eliminate them .


6195 Teru Mikami 70588bc3 on 2019/05/30 (Thursday) 08:22:52

+ real intuitives wouldn't use wooden doors


6199 phsc 51ce0ead on 2019/05/30 (Thursday) 17:19:37

Before his time ruling he made very long term plans, military organization, economical planning, etc, some even mentioned in Mein Kampf, he kept them and applied them, though he was adaptative, that is why I vote X for P and J.


6200 fg 3d4044d6 on 2019/05/30 (Thursday) 17:31:24

according to Johann Chapoutot ( historian specialist of nazism who made a biography of hitler) he was not a planner at all. according to him the german military strategist did all the work.  he only succeed to fake a lot of millitary skills because he was hypermnesic.


6202 Teru Mikami 70588bc3 on 2019/05/30 (Thursday) 17:47:00

he was also on meth


6206 phsc 51ce0ead on 2019/05/30 (Thursday) 20:44:11

What I'm talking about is his planning before the war started and not exactly military planning, and probably he had very little help when he was writing Mein Kampf because he was in jail because of the Munich Putsch, which was probably also planned, of course he did not know he would go as far as he did and in war all he did was set general objectives but not the specific plans, he just took a look at them to decide which one to pick.


8174 ftp ff104b2d on 2020/05/04 (Monday) 19:53:01

pee pee poo poo


8680 Tman 52a6040f on 2021/03/16 (Tuesday) 22:46:28

PHSC, why ISFP in terms of IDR functions?


8682 phsc 51ce0ead on 2021/03/17 (Wednesday) 08:40:39

it\'s not based on IDR it\'s based on a ton of other authors, what i vote in sakinorva is what i think fits most authors not what fits exactly IDRlabs, theres an infinite amount of authors n generally i try to stick with grant/brownsword etc because that is what the sakinorva function test uses kind of so i think it\'s better, i do think hitler is INFJ by IDR but by grant, brownsword, nardi, beebe, and myers herself i don\'t think INFJ is the best fit and generally what comes to mind is ISFP, i think INFJ can work for IDR and probably works the best for like thomson (prob the best INFJ fit tbh)


8683 Tman 52a6040f on 2021/03/17 (Wednesday) 14:22:04

By IDR functions I just meant "the none Socionics functions." So, for ISFP: it would go Fi, Se, Ni, Te. are we referring to the same basic theory here? I apologize for the confusion.


8684 phsc 51ce0ead on 2021/03/17 (Wednesday) 18:20:37

yeah see Fe in many definitions is about following external opinions n respect n in general ethics i dont think killing jews rly fits that yno\r\nalso theres the Fi = selfish mf aspect of some definitions which i also think he fits p well\r\ni also dont think Ti is a very good fit for the INFJ vote, and if you take some other definitions Te inferior or whatever it may be called in different systems actually kinda fits see this dude lost the war because he didnt rly think about efficiency or running things in very direct organized ways and while this might be a good fit for Ni if you take that the nazis were more focused on more long term stuff like haha jet plane that doesnt appear on radar go brrr i do think he missed lots of opportunities w things he made himself cuz prob it wasnt very well planned like the u-boats n such which imo were underrated, i can even see this as a potential argument for Ne over Se rly but i do still think Ni generally is a better fit\r\n\r\nit is the same theory n isnt see people in typology are fucking retarded n dont realize that some people are speaking german while others are speaking english and instead of working within clear defined functions they just think of it as \"the functions\" and this is the cause of most discussions, but if you take it by authors n such and actually type under the multiple different frameworks it actually gets way better (still shit but at least like it doesnt stink), by Fi Se Ni Te you could mean a lot, from the original jungian functions, to some random person who defined the functions in some weird tumblr website, whatever goes on in the head of the average pdb user, john beebe, dario nardi, harold grant, linda berens, isabel myers, lenore thomson, alan brownsword, objective personality, IDRlabs, CS josephs butchering of beebe, or literally, anything, its all a different take on the same subject but falling under a very similar framework of the same names n such, turns out socionics isnt that far from the functions if you think that john beebe has a fancy 8 function method of use model and some others have a fancy 4 function use thing while others have weird quadras n such


8685 phsc 51ce0ead on 2021/03/17 (Wednesday) 18:41:11

just felt like mentioning that like, basically all systems in typology work like this, theres a ton of different MBTI definitions all around and it just makes the system worse, i mean originally it was bad and some adaptations can kinda save it bt at least theres kind of a central authority which is the myers briggs foundation?????? thats what i generally use, most people just be like HAHA HE THINKS SO I SHALL VOTE T which is extremely extremely subjective n relative n hard to interpret, N/S definitions generally are even more of a clusterfuck, P and J is decent? and E and I is hard to fuck up\r\nand well, enneagram is a clusterfuck, to this day idk what the enneagram institute works with but riso/hudson, beatrice chestnut, aranjo, theres even more like ichazo, almaas which i dont think anyone here uses i mean i dont rly think anyone other than like scotty n straw actually think of individual ennea authors (which is funny cuz theres tests that work out of specific ennea author stuff!)\r\neven socionics isnt safe from this, it looks like its one big system but hteres a lot to it, we have gulenko and stratievskaya which ive seen being used here but theres a lot more to it and sometimes individual things added to the whole major system out of that but if you compare only the two, stratievskaya and gulenko theres a few big differences yno not to mention like things not always accepted like reinin dichotomies\r\neven psychosophy/psyche yoga falls for this to an extent, the biggest issue is the way ppl learn typology, itsn ot like reading a book by someone, its seeing haha yes this is INTJ i saw ppl voting this as INTJ and ppl explained that htis is INTJ so i will go by this, or like some random misinformed article video wikipedia page etc, the closest we get to a objective system which is separated is kind of jungian functions per se like the ones actually written by jung but most ppl have no idea of what they are doing w them and didnt read the book so uuuh


8686 Tman 52a6040f on 2021/03/17 (Wednesday) 19:49:45

I mean, you do know all forms of MBTI are either Empirically untested, or proven to be unreliable right? Like, no actual \"Objective Sources\" promote it, and most Physiologists specializing in personality view it as Pseudo Science. Like, your pretty much gate keeping Astrology here.


8687 Tman 52a6040f on 2021/03/17 (Wednesday) 19:51:30

I\'d love to be proven wrong on this front, because I personally find MBTI very helpful. It\'s just that all of the evidence seems to point against it.


8688 phsc 51ce0ead on 2021/03/17 (Wednesday) 20:25:45

THIS IS LITERALLY THE DUMBEST THING IVE EVER READ ON THIS WEBSITE DUDE LIKE WHAT THE FUCK\r\n\r\nfirst, WHY is it empirically untested? actually, it is, it actually is! and this is why it is taken as false, because see, the way it originally works is that there are the 4 dichotomies, E/I, N/S, T/F and J/P, the way they test shit is not like they do w the big 5 or HEXACO or whatever is considered \"real science\", instead of measuring it in a scale from 0 to 1 people take the fucking absolute values, and it is a false dichotomy, so of course it goes to shit, not to mention how definitions are not always clear, yeah if you take it as T and F literally it is going to suck, but if you think a bit and like think \"F people care about the feelings of others and social harmony and all of that\" (that is how the mbti foundation defines it!) you actually can literally make a direct correlation with agreeableness its pretty much the same fucking thing, E-I is pretty obvious, N-S you can correlate w openess but its not as poggers and it is kinda shit imo the worst, J-P is harder to correlate, i\'ve seen people go as far as to say that mbti is bad cuz it doesnt talk about neuroticism but this is just fucking stupid its a different system of course like the big 5 isnt bad because it doesnt have the H fucking letter from HEXACO this is extremely stupid and this is actual \"scientific criticism\" see turns out the people who fucking study psychology are fucking morons\r\n\r\nYOU DONT UNDERSTAND WHAT A SOURCE IS, see if i write down \"phsc typology system\" and theres like D and S where D is dumb and S is smart and i write that down, that is a source, you work with such definitions that is consistent, someone on tumblr might write that D is dominant and S is small dick or whatever like that isnt hte same thing if you type ppl within that the results iwll differ of course this is what happens w this you are so fucking stupid you cannot even realize what i mean by a fucking source\r\n\r\nand by objective i mean SOMETHING YOU CAN COMPARE TO, see you dont understand what a source is at all, who the fuck cares about sources like that like HAHA SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL PUBLISHES X doesnt fucking matter thats literally just appeal to authority see what matters is the content and what i mean by a source is that oyu work by a framework if you read a book on python that is your source on python and you work w that if someone reads another book on python the source is different this is what i fucking mean you fucking dumbass\r\n\r\nit is not a pseudo science it is poorly executed science because ive never seen anyone say MBTI is science or anything, also out of all the typology systems its actually one of the least worst like fucking go talk to an actual scientist about the functions lmao see turns out i actually had classes on scientific initiation and publishing you fucking moron i know what im talking about also may i mention the p value of 0.05 is a fucking joke for fucking psychology and psychology as a whole shouldnt be a science just like economics but this is going a bit too deep ANYWAY\r\n\r\nTHE COMPARATION TO ASTROLOGY IS SO FUCKING STUPID like dude you must be trolling no fucking way\r\nastrology = haha your personality is correlated to the position of random planets or whatever\r\nmbti = haha theres 4 dichotomies that sets you\r\nhmmmm what a fair comparation yeah its the same thing, literally! actually, the reason people think mbti is bad isnt even valid, it is generally because its not consistent and results change, so what? yeah you cant make research w that really, but who cares? see its just because of the p value, and its not relevant at all, because the ppl researching that dont even understand the system n work it out w the fucking false dichotomy\r\n\r\n\r\nMBTI isnt helpful, actually ALL TYPOLOGY IS NOT HELPFUL, you are literally just categorizing something oyu alreayd know, you gain nothing from it other than stereotyping, the reason big 5 n HEXACO are \"useful\" is because you can do research w them and like ohoho average gamer has a low value on agreeability hoho and that is what psychologists want to do\r\n\r\nsee, another thing which you ignore, a thing doesn ot have to be a science nor empirical to be true, mathematics isnt a science! most of computer science isnt actually a sicence as well (and i actually know a lot about this!!!), its just theoretical concepts which you apply in many ways w no real empirical evidence like how the fuck are you going to do empirical tests w imaginary numbers, computer science n math do have more empirical aspects to them but its mostly just execution of frameworks which you learn i dont rly expect you to understand this if you were not able to understand what i said\r\n\r\nsee this is rly fucking frustrating because youre dumb as fuck tman, i actually kinda like you youre like generally nice but this kind of shit really pisses me off i actually fear your reply because i think you will understand nothing i said and well, i mean what to expect really, it is a typology community after all, stupid attracts stupid\r\n\r\nalso you understood what i said so fucking well to the point you didnt even realize i constantly call typology shit, and if you did read my other comments it is because its a bunch of arbitrary inconsistent systems that are out of touch w reality n have a bunch of fallacies to them, im not pro-typology or anything i dont believe the concept of \"type\" makes sense for psychology like this but i guess you just ignore that and say im gatekeeping astrology, fuck you


8689 Tman 52a6040f on 2021/03/17 (Wednesday) 21:23:17

To be perfectly blunt, I can\'t understand you a lot of the times because your a bad writer. You tend to write things out in these long, stream of conciseness style screeds, where it feels like your trying to cram down every single thought that comes into your head onto the text box as quickly as possible. I know it\'s rich coming from Captain Spelling Errors over here, but it\'s the truth.\r\n\r\nSecond off, not all appeals to authority are fallacious; it only becomes so when the authority is irreverent. My point was that Psychologists tend to reject MBTI because of a lack of empirical evidence; I wasn\'t saying they were right just because they were Psychologists.\r\n\r\nI agree you can prove something without Empirical evidence, but in that case, by what standard of Evidence could we possibly say MBTI was true? Are we going to prove it from Cartesien first principles? \r\n\r\nThe Astrology thing was mostly hyperbole.


8690 Tman 52a6040f on 2021/03/17 (Wednesday) 21:26:53

Oh also I said,\r\n\"Empirically untested, o̲r̲ ̲p̲r̲o̲v̲e̲n̲ ̲u̲n̲r̲e̲l̲i̲a̲b̲l̲e̲\"


8691 phsc 51ce0ead on 2021/03/17 (Wednesday) 21:36:36

you just lack the intelligence to parse what i write out, because i can easily understand what you write and your writing is much, much worse, i am trying to cram every single thought that comes into my head, yes, whats the issue w that? its so no steps of my thinking are skipped\r\nyou didnt have an argument because all you said \"psychologists say MBTI is pseudoscience\" why is it pseudoscience? because it has no \"empirical evidence\" you didnt provide anything for that, also how can we know the evidence is true? see, data and such are p much appeal to authority as well because it all can be faked, literally, people can be paid to do things and lie and there is no way to know, im not saying that happens, im saying its possible, also see, you didnt include the data or why it is not valid empirically in your comment, there are multiple reasons for that, you didnt have the additional argument so by the information present there all one can say is that it is an appeal to authority, and i said it is fallacious because i believe the reasoning used by the people who love to shit on MBTI is wrong and i did explain a bit of that\r\n\r\nMBTI doesnt need proof, its just a concept, this is the biggest mistake you are making\r\nthere is E and I, N and S, T and F and J and P, you can put people into these dichotomies, ok, thats it\r\nis it objective? generally not but typology communities tend to be very ignorant and the definitions are basically never clear nor objective (this is what i was trying to say!!!)\r\n\r\nbut even then, there is no confirmation needed for a concept to exist, and MBTI is just a concept, it is not a real thing you dont need to like go and test it because it is just a classification method, you dont need to get empirical evidence for the classification, it just... is there, if i say that there are things that are real, does this means that htings that are not real dont exist? not really i mean they exist in the field of the ideas, see, the thing is, by applying MBTI it is obvious that like, people of all the types exist, is it consistent or whatever? no, but you can easily apply it and find easily that people do fit the criteria, like, as i said, if you define it as i said coming from correlations with the big 5, E/I, to an extent N/S and T/F are pretty much kind of already easy to see, J/P well, some people prefer to make plans and have things set, others dont, well, thats it, literally\r\n\r\nyou dont need a proof for concepts because they are.. concepts, categorization does not need proof, there is no proof a number is an integer or real, it is just categorization, you can take a number and see what it fits n such but this is not what i am trying to say here, that would be like taking someone E and trying to see if they fit the criteria for E, but for that to be possible, the concept of E or integer must be there\r\n\r\nalso, again, MBTI is treated poorly academically, i have never seen actual good research with it mostly because of how they deal w the dichotomies in general, the biggest issues with it is the inconsistency of the results which makes it not very viable for research long term, and well, people can change within big 5 and ocean so, its just a matter of time, the fact people change could say a lot really, but i dont expect psychologists to care\r\n\r\ntldr of the thing about mbti being real: a concept is not really real i mean, it is a concept, its in your head, just like numbers are yno, you dont need proof for that! categorization has no justification! just how it may be used and why it was made, but that is not relevant to the question exactly


8692 phsc 51ce0ead on 2021/03/17 (Wednesday) 21:38:29

it\'s not unrealiable, its just that the traits it checks... can change! just like traits people ahve in the big 5 can change, but it just changes more often, is that an issue? for research yeah, but does it mean it is not valid for any other reason if you constantly update it? no\r\nand again, the results often come different because of the tests used and such, and the fact that kind of test is very up to bias and how someone is feeling during a specific period of time, that does not mean objectively categorization of their personality is not possible within the system with clear definitions and dealing w the dichotomies like the big 5 or hexaco do it, with a value of 0 to 1


8693 Tman 52a6040f on 2021/03/17 (Wednesday) 22:11:31

So then how do we deterimin weather or not MBTI accurately describes the world? Is there a way we can evaluate abstract concepts? \r\nMy criticism of your writing is more that your thoughts aren\'t clearly organized. If there\'s to much information, it all just starts to look like background noise, and it\'s difficult to tell what are the important bits.\r\nAlso, all data and scientific studies are faulty appeals to authority, because \"it could be faked?\" So we can\'t scientifically provide evidence for anything? \r\nThe burden of proof isn\'t on me to find evince against MBTI, because you can\'t prove a negative. Russel\'s Teapot and all that.


8694 phsc 51ce0ead on 2021/03/17 (Wednesday) 22:31:11

burden of proof is fallacious because the principle that something is false and true is actually false, see, there is another state which is very important and often ignored, I DONT KNOW/UNDEFINED\r\nthe burden of proof is actually on you tho, you are making hte positive claim that \"MBTI is not scientifical\", you are making an affirmation, you are sure about it, its all about how you see it, applying a NOT modifier is literally the same as defining something as true in more formal logic\r\nyou are taking \"X is not A by default\" into claiming that \"X is not A\", there is a big difference, like if i said \"theres an invisible hippo in the room that is impossible to detect or determine or whatever / most definitions of god xd xd) the only right answer is \"there is no way to judge if there is an invisible hippo in the room\", you cannot get evidence to judge it yno yno\r\n\r\nwell, if the big 5 is big big science, then 75% of MBTI already is valid cuz of the correlations i said, J and P in general makes sense, you can just... execute it i mean, you see someone voted as 1.0 P you interpret it just like youd interpret like someone voted 1.0 A in big 5, there is a big issue w this kind of trait based thing which is that there are multiple traits and oyu cannot know which exactly the person fits, but for a 1.0 youd assume all, so someone who likes to go w the flow and adapt n such over careful planning and determined things like scheludes etc, seems pretty valid to me, you dont need to test htis 500 times to know it is true or not, there are people who will be the 0.5, just like there are ppl who are like that in big 5 or HEXACO (H in hexaco is a joke if you take this i just said about multiple traits under a single category and consider that H is honesty and humility, both might be correlated but sometimes there is the exception case!)\r\ni really dont see how there is anything else to discuss, we evaluate abstract concepts by... applying them, and by applying MBTI you can see that under the way you define it in your head it makes sense n such, as much as other \"fancy scientifically accepted systems\", anyway,\r\n\r\nmy thoughts are clearly organized to me, i can see the flow of my thinking directly, however there is one thing i do which is that i sometimes go back to something i said, generally for two reasons: to put emphasis on it, and because i just realized something else related to it, i think this helps with a few things, one is that you can see where my thinking is coming from exactly AND it also is more effective so i dont need to scroll up and edit things, turns out time is actually worth something in my opinion and writing massive amounts of text on the internet spends a lot of it, so i gotta go fast!\r\n\r\nalso i didnt say we scientifically cant provide evidence, science doesnt care about that, but if you want to see it by a more a priori epistemological perspective, yeah that is an issue, see, i think science is great for explaining things about the world that do not care about what one thinks about them, like, ballistics is a topic that has been fascinating to me lately, and it is not really about ones opinion on it, the thing is, the validity of typology systems are not like this, describing people kind of fits but there is way too much interpretation to be had, even over the more \"scientifical\" systems, i think psychology is generally a poorly executed science w a lot of bullshit involved as well, while something like neuroscience is much, much better, but even by the scientifical view i dont think MBTI is a pseudo science, it is not amazing either, since it has few uses, but i think it can be applied still and be used in rather interesting ways if handled properly, which is something ive never seen happen


8695 phsc 51ce0ead on 2021/03/17 (Wednesday) 22:36:52

btw if you ask the fallacy, its a non sequitur i mean this kinda applies to a lot of principles n such but i mean, it literally does! this gets into the annoying axiom principle etc discussion which just ends up into haha things are arbitrary i really hope you understand what i mean by this and dont want me to develop on it because its kinda annoying


8696 Jacobus 900d2bea on 2021/03/17 (Wednesday) 23:02:06

the use of data and statistics is unnecessary and even misleading where intuition is sufficient


8697 Tman 52a6040f on 2021/03/17 (Wednesday) 23:30:45

It seems like a philosophical system that wouldn\'t allow us to determine that there weren\'t invisible hypos in every room would be impractical at best. \r\nJust to be clear, I\'m claiming that MBTI has not been empirically proven. If someone wanted to argue against that point, the burden of proof would be on them. \r\n At this point though, it really seems like we actually mostly agree; you seem to more view MBTI as a helpful subjective guide rather then an objective scientific fact, and are more frustrated with inconstancy with definitions.


8698 Tman 52a6040f on 2021/03/17 (Wednesday) 23:34:34

What do you mean by \"Intuition?\" Because it kind of sounds like your saying people don\'t need statistical evidence to prove stuff when they have a strong gut feeling that what they believe is true.


8699 Dollar Shave Club One Wipe Scottys cc04e958 on 2021/03/18 (Thursday) 00:11:45

He means he can't articulate his thoughts as they don't make any sense.


8701 Jacobus 900d2bea on 2021/03/18 (Thursday) 01:19:30

Things that are inherently non-empirical, such as the personality type of a long-dead famous person, do not require data or statistics because they cannot be \"proven\" in the typical sense. It\'s pointless to attach oneself to any method in these cases because doing so is besides the point, and attempting to reduce such grand and indefinable things as human behavior to a formula is a kind of stupidity.


8702 phsc 51ce0ead on 2021/03/18 (Thursday) 11:32:24

oh ok, i was interpreting it wrong, i was interpreting it as if you were saying \"MBTI is not empirically valid\", not that \"it has not been proven\", but see, do you even understand what are the issues people bring up for MBTI in a \"scientifical\" way? like, let me actually educate you on this, to keep it simple, i\'ll be using a post that went pretty high in r/psychology a while ago, about the \"scientifical\" issues with MBTI, also some other things\r\nfirst i will start w the other, how does one generally interpret MBTI? first, in psychology of personality tests, you do not look into the system nor the test itself, but the interpretation of results, the issue they think makes the system not valid is that, the results change a lot each time you take the test, ok, is this an issue of the system? no, it is an issue of the test, this is how i see it, and this is what makes sense\r\ntheres a few other issues people mention, such as the UTILITY of the test (as i said, it has few uses for research!)\r\nthe test itself and the way it works, the fact it doesnt correlate to the big 5 (this is fallacious and it easily can, but not completely, also this is interesting, people got so used to the big 5 they literally cannot interpret different systems in... different ways!)\r\nhttps://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1p2cki/how_scientifically_valid_is_the_myers_briggs/\r\n\r\nanyway, back to what i originally wanted to link\r\nhttps://www.reddit.com/r/psychology/comments/m2vkha/why_the_myersbriggs_personality_test_has_no/\r\nyou can see it has a ton of upvotes and like got like gold or whatever idk i dont understand these new reddit awards\r\nreason 1 is really dumb, \"it is based on carl jung\'s ideas\", see a lot of what jung did is very very not capable of proof, and he did have interest in dumb things like religion, alchemy and astrology, mythology and religion actually can be justified since it was about how men see the world n such but i dont expect these retards to actually know about jung, also jung was agaisnt MBTI because he believed it was an oversimplification\r\npredicting outcomes w MBTI, first they are using the very old source material by myers which imo is trash but the SYSTEM is not, this is what i defend, ok, this is what i wanted to talk about, it is not useful for research because it does not show \"useful\" things, actually it does, like it says that you cannot correlate psychological disorders with MBTI, you actually can, the issue is that MBTI really does not work as a self-assessment kind of test, a psychopath or sociopath very likely wont admit that he is one and identify as 1.0 T in a test like this for scientific reasons for fucks sake, not to mention that T-F is very similar to agreeableness, and E-I literally is present, so half of the things big 5 does well, MBTI also does, N-S is imo very stupid but also can be correlated, J-P is the new stuff that actually yeah it does not correlate much, but i would easily say that P people probably would peform well in companies that are more adaptable, like google or working by themselves, than someone who is very P and is in something very rigid like the army\r\npoint 3 is something i already mentioned multiple times, they work with it as two completely different dichotomies and not a scale, this is common and this is wrong, like look at this website, it has a scale! of course it is not a perfect value of 0 to 1 or -1 to 1 or whatever, because you cannot vote like 0.115 BUT this is for practical reasons, it is not an issue of the system itself yet of how it was implemented, it is not an issue with E or I or N or S instead it is an issue with how all of the dichotomies are interpreted\r\npoint 4 is very stupid, any form of categorization is inherently arbitrary, like take something scientifical, ballistics, in this case internal and terminal ballistics, HP and FMJ are two round types, why are they different? because they were projected different, is the categorization arbitrary? kind of i mean, they do differ, ok so if something differs we do separate them, but HOW MUCH is differing? anyway, MBTI uses statistics fo this, and yeah, the choice of median and average and such is arbitrary, does this mean it is wrong? it is a system, why create categories for the human personality that do not consider the entire human personality? why take categories like H in HEXACO and put both honesty and humility in them, as much as one can say there is a correlation (and i agree, there is), there are always cases where it differs, and as far as i know, is not this what the big 5 or HEXACO do as well??????? i think the article is talking about how it cuts it in half for each dichotomy instead of using a linear scale\r\nreliability ive already talked about this multiple times, this is more about test and self-assessment than the system itself, also, just because it changes it does not mean it is wrong or bad, it just mean it changes!\r\nreason 6 is pretty much already talked about in this comment and in past ones, the concept of type is dumb, traits are the way to go, MBTI is not a typology system per se, it is a multi trait system, like HEXACO or the big 5, that is interpreted generally as a type system, which is just dumb\r\nreason 7 fits this already etc etc\r\nreason 8 is stupid and just because one system deals with that it does not mean all systems should, the big 5 does not measure J-P directly, neither the HEXACO, you at most can correlate conscientiousness with being J and such but i would not say it is a very big relation betwen the two, ok, so the big 5 is bad because it doesnt measure J and P!\r\n\r\nand the rest is just useless already known stuff, see, this is the issue, what people view MBTI as is dumb but it is not an issue of the system yet how the system is applied, and that is popular and such, may i mention i really hate people who study psychology and i think psychology is a crap science, the reasons for this are pretty big but the biggest one is how it deals w its p value, which is very high, and how p hacking is common in psychology and how biased people in psychology are, this happens in other fields as well, like as i said, economics\r\n\r\ni do agree with you, but not that MBTI is helpful, MBTI is just a system, a categorization system, it can be objective scientific fact but i really dont want to do the research myself because of lack of resources and a few other things, also lack of time, however i am pretty sure it can pass everything that makes it \"owo scientifically beautiful\" with the changes we see like... in this website! which is not really much, and of course, with a good test, i actually think the false and true MBTI type test from sakinorva is a very good one, because people basically always seem to score the same, ive seen, or with very very small value differences, of course over time personality does change, and even the big 5 changes, the consistency point is imo very stupid and it just makes the job of researchers easier, while well, you need to get out of your comfort zone and work with something more complicated, WHY does it change? ive never seen someone talk about this yno


8703 phsc 51ce0ead on 2021/03/18 (Thursday) 11:42:00

that is empirical wym history is a thing i mean, someone back then experienced something and wrote it down, we cannot test it again, yeah, so it is not as valid as lets say checking the shape of earth or if chroloquine is effective agaisnt covid, but it can be logically proven, not intuitively\r\nsee intuition is just instinction, it is the same thing, yno like system 1 and 2 by daniel kahneman in thinking fast and slow?\r\nthe idea of system 1: instinctive, emotional, fast and system 2: logical, calculating, slow, well, turns out intuition is pretty much just instincts after all if you stop to think about it, it is just a fancier word, and it is very, very often wrong, like typology wise it just builds a ton of biases and mostly works with you already know (thats the idea of system 1! working with what you already know) while you do not actually think about it, so we end up with extremely biased typings or things that seem to make sense and first but when you stop it doesnt, and this is hte issue with typology communities, nobody actually stops and thinks, you might not be able to get the personality of hitler but you can read on it and type what you ahve read, and that is pretty damn objective if you set clear definitions, this does not happen because people learn things in different and different places, and well why is my definition better than yours? there are a few points that can be made but generally inherently it isnt\r\n\r\nalso human behaviour cna fit a formula pretty damn well, this is the idea of neuroscience, looking inside and seeing what causes what, actual sciece\r\n\r\nanyway, see, system 1 aka intuition/instinction isnt really inherently bad, but it has to be trained, you need to think a bit to then go automatic, and most people dont even do this, the best way to check for this is to ask people to explain, go to pdb and ask why someone votes someone something and they will say \"oh he is very Ni\" then ask then why is he Ni and what is Ni and they kinda break, of course its mostly impressionable teenagers who just got into the system but still, it is intuition, is it right? no\r\n\r\nalso statistics are kinda important, if you type like many people in similar values for all letters, they should be decently similar on the traits one judges, and are they always? id say that most people in typology communities are very inconsistent with that, with some i consider more experienced are very consistent with that\r\n\r\nand there is another thing, the point that \"personality is big so we cannot put it down to a formula\" is kinda stupid, imagine back then, the shape of the earth, people knew it was not exactly a ball, because there are mountains and such, and now we can actually get specific measurements of what it is like, hell people even believed it was flat (some still do!), the thing is, knowledge is slow and you need to slowly make analysis of things, these systems get refuted and better, more specific ones, are put in their places, and then we go to the moon because of that, long term this is very good, this is what i am trying to say, look for the bigger scheme or things not the minor one


8704 Jacobus 900d2bea on 2021/03/18 (Thursday) 13:20:55

The world is a dream, and, in a way, even the laws of thermodynamics were invented.


8706 phsc 51ce0ead on 2021/03/18 (Thursday) 14:15:58

noumenan and phenomenon my dude, just because we humans are limited by our perceptions of things it does not mean a bigger thing does not exist, i mean i do agree the law of thermodynamics is just an invented human explanation, but it does not mean it depends on your perception of reality - the dream - for it to be real or true, this is the idea of theories and laws and such, its just putting the universe in ways we can understand


8707 Tman 52a6040f on 2021/03/18 (Thursday) 17:40:38

I agree that we can\'t empirically measure the personality type of dead people, but claiming that we can\'t \"reduce human behavior to a formula?\" I mean yes and no. There are some pretty well established scientific principles in Psychology (mostly dealing with behavior), but that doesn\'t mean every part of every persons personality can be reduced to a theory, because that would be stupid and no one is even trying to do that.


8742 jungagain ae1f56bd on 2021/05/11 (Tuesday) 13:10:08

Most EIE to ever EIE


8745 12345tp12345 155af60e on 2021/05/11 (Tuesday) 14:53:02

most unhealthy you mean


namepassword
comment