Is mbti more accurate than zodiac?

>>19597212
>>19597212
Zodiac signs are complete nonsense and this is normie-tier popular psychology. So yeah, it should be a tiny bit more accurate.

>>19597212

Does it reveal imprinted patterns in your subconscious?

Is it closely analogous with the archetypical psychology?

Can it explain strange behaviour and events on a daily basis?

>>19597212
A little bit. I'm not too keen on function theory itself and how things like introversion and extroversion, thinking and feeling, etc. are seen as mutually exclusive. Especially the thinking and feeling bit. I don't see each individual type as a definitive label that each person wears, rather as different modalities that people often shift between as situations call for it.

>>19597212
I'd say the mbti is more descriptive of the way one thinks rather than anything else, and I know absolutely nothing about psychology.

I will say though, having been your typical brooding little piece of shit, "no one understands me" teen, finding out about the mbti kind of helped me understand both myself and other people better.

t. INFP

>>19597212
At least my Zodiac sign stays the same... that test has a different result every time that I take it.

>>19597769
idk choosing different answers usually yield different results, no?

one of the many problems with mbti is it requires you to already know what you are like to answer the questions to do the test, thus making the results either inaccurate or at best redundant because it would be telling you things you already know.

>>19597769
That's because you don't have a defined personality/ don't know who you are.

>>19597932
I feel like the answers that I give differently that yield different results are rather trivial things that shouldn't be anywhere near accurate as a gauge for generalizations about my personality.

>>19598019
Fair enough, I guess.

What's your favourite type?

I am an INTJ and I have only loved an ENFP.

File: Screen Shot 2017-09-15 at 4.33.20 PM.png (106KB, 1262x428px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1262x428px

>>19598475

File: Screen Shot 2017-09-15 at 4.38.06 PM.png (110KB, 1202x429px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 1202x429px

>>19598878

File: Screen Shot 2017-09-15 at 4.42.08 PM.png (98KB, 1133x425px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1133x425px

>>19598884

File: Screen Shot 2017-09-15 at 4.46.41 PM.png (109KB, 1221x439px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1221x439px

>>19598890

>>19597212
It is. Zodiac is too vague.

>>19597212
Notice how all the descriptions are generally positive for all the personality types, and then remember how that is total bullshit.

People choose to live in small boxes.

>>19597212
The zodiac is harmless mythology while myers-briggs type indicator is a load of pseudoscience, which is actually worse since people really believe in that shit

>>19598019
What a load of horseshit. This only means the test is unrealiable. You can't take a person's traits and make them fit neatly into a box.
No test can define your personality. If you insist on that thing, the five factor model is way more accurate. You can actually use it to determine your tendency towards developing certain mental disorders, for example.

>>19599894
The test helps you to understand some aspects f your personality but of course we are all different. But if you have a different result everytime you make the test, you are inconsistent or aren't being honest with yourself.

>>19599940
This test is never used for anything in psychology. No person trying to hire you is going to use it to understand how you act. It can't detect potential mental disorders. It can't do anything.
Despite being useless for all that, it could still be a proper test and have good repeteability. It doesn't. A person doing the test and being honest with their answers should always get the same results; I know many people who have taken it and don't. This means it's lacking more categories, or the questions are either insufficient or improperly scaled.

It's on the pseudoscience realm, and it's been considered that way for years, just like the Rorschach test. However, everybody knows how hard it is to kill internet fads.

Very much so, MBTI is based on the psychological research of Carl Jung, whilst Astrology is autism people tell retards like you who will believe anything you tell them because they have the deductive reasoning skills of a 12 year old

>>19599974
Every time I answer honestly, I get the same results...
Maybe it's because you yourself believe in Crystals and Woo that you're too stupid to figure out that you have to answer Accurately in order to get Accurate results?

>>19597212
Just something to feel superior over others.
Also, haven't read Jung, but apparantly he notes in one of his books that only people inferior can be fitted in one type, a developed mind can show any of these traits.
So yeah, putting a label over yourself and then feeling superior because of it isn't a healthy thing to do, duh.

>>19597212
I don't think all of the Myers-Briggs tests are equally accurate. I personally really like John's Personality test because it gives you the option to skip questions; https://jupiter-34.appspot.com/

>>19602111
I also happen to believe that over a course of someones life that their personality can change. Especially if they've had a traumatic event harm their psyche or if somebody grows up with too few challenges that once they mature their personality may also become different.

>>19599974
I always have the same result and that's because I know who I am. People who have a different result are not being honest with themselves.

>>19601798
>>19602263
>trying to argue but get the same canned answer over and over
Guess I was asking for it by coming here to talk with the /x/ loonies

>Maybe it's because you yourself believe in Crystals and Woo
Funny you'd say that since you are the one who believes in the MBTI, which is bogus disguised as science. No idea what are these 'crystals' you talk about, but they sound like typical new age bullshit.

They are both collections of archetypes that work for some people and do not for some. They seem roughly on the same level to me.

>>19602409
>Psychology
>A Researched Science
>Bogus
>Astrology
>Make Believe fairytale we tell kids
>Real

Wew lad

>>19597251
To be fair, most normies have a surface-level understanding of Astrology

>>19598878
>Would kill you if he got his hands on a Death Note
This is... pretty accurate

Given that the MBTI specifies personality types by how a person acts, rather than by when they were born, which gives zero indication of an individual's personality... I'd say it's at least SOMEWHAT more accurate. Not very good at predicting a person's actions though.

>>19598884
>Will obey any order you give if you use the right buzzwords. Basically a dog.
Case in point, total bullshit. Buzzwords give me hives.