MBTI

>>18681421
Im sorry man
t. E/INFP

>MBTI
I'm sorry you're retarded

>>18681421

Honestly don't worry about this.
You can actually change yourself more or less with changing your habit, or lifestyle or way of thinking . With improving yourself it will change anyways. Its not like it will determine your potential for the rest of your life that you're an ESTJ now. We are in constant change .

If I would go out and socialize more I would probably become an ESTP since i would adopt a more extroverted way of thinking.

t. ISTP ,

>>18681421
good thing Jungian archetypes are giant load of horseshit that have almost no scientific backing.

Seriously fucking hate seeing these on dating websites, Personality trait expression is highly contextual and also an incredibly hard domain to accurately measure.

>>18681429
>>18681457
Why? I keep doing the test every couple of months and have the same personality type, also famous people with this personality type resemble me sometimes. To me it seems one of the best ways to classify people, much better than classifying them based on age, gender, race, profession or whatever.

>>18681468
Have you actually looked into the validity of it, or did you just think "Oh, I like the idea of simplifying literally billions of people on four dimensions into 16 personality types"?

>>18681473
It applies to me and it applies to some people in my life. This is enough evidence for me.

>>18681477
You could say the same thing about horoscopes, do you believe in horoscopes too?

>>18681479
No, horoscopes apply to everyone, this is their point. MBTI are much more reliable. Dont even compare.

>>18681484
MBTI is the pseudo-science equivalent of horoscopes. You are literally subscribing to psychological horoscopes if you think MBTI has any validity whatsoever. Do just five minutes of research into it if you don't believe it.

there's a general overview of criticism on the wiki page if your curious.


There's issues with how we measure personality in general, a lot of traits are fairly abstract. when measuring things like this we have to deal with the methodological issues of phyometetrics, the short of it is for data to be useful we need to be able to produce reliable (i.e repeatable), but the way we frame the domain (what is personality, what is a trait) has a huge affect on what data we get. Finally, you have to assess validity, are the conclusions you're drawing from the data even relevant to the thing you are trying to measure. This is one layer to why these test are of dubious usefulness. Jung didn't really develop his theory from any sort of rigorous data.

I have personal criticism of this whole system:
- generally I distrust Freud, and by extension Jung and psychoanalysis in general, I don't think a lot of what humans do is that deep.

- Sociology has a general criticism of 'self' in general. short hand, your personality is a negotiation of you and your environment and changes across contexts. ex. you may talk to your wife and she perceives you one way, then you got o work and have a completely different interaction and relationship with your boss, yet it doesn't strike you as in congruent.

So my two cents on it, is the reason our personalities seem constant across time is in part a perceptual illusion, we see our personal narratives as interconnected by 'us' and that our circumstances are fairly constant across time.

There's a good invisibalia podcast on this if you're interested