Do you guys genuinely believe in MBTI ?
This shit uses the same bias as a fucking horoscope, how can you be that dumb ?
Also I've been typed as INTJ but that doesn't define me at all.
>>29346535
That's exactly what an INTJ would say...
>>29346535
Fuck man, I thought you was someone who really hated MBTI and study psychology like me, but that last comment sorta put me off guard man.
I hate those STEMfags trolling or unironically saying psychology is not a science, but at least they would agree MBTI is utter shit.
>>29346535
"The same bias as a horoscope"
Are you that dumb
>>29346535
Aww, look at op, such a big grown up edgelord. Mbti don't define him, he do what he want.
>>29346631
MBTI is close to astrology and Freudian psychobabble. The only reason it seems legit is because it is still very popular within the business world. That and they still teach it at college, like that faggot Freud.
>>29346631
read about confirmation bias
>>29346535
Saying 'do you believe in MBTI' is like saying 'do you believe in height' or 'do you believe in temperature'. It is a measurement. Like all measurements, it has certain reliability and validity. You don't 'believe' measurements; you just accept them for what they are. The property of being believable does not refer to measurements, but to agents reporting them (humans, universities, media). A measurement cannot be believed or not believed.
Your question makes no sense and you are retarded.
t. ESFP
>>29346735
But it's wrong to try and quantify human behaviors and traits. I'm so much more than just three letters. It's just so fucking stupid and beneath me. Exact same bias as astrology but for some reason people take it seriously.
>>29346717
M-my nigga.
But let's be realistic, it is unlikely that these fools will read actual psychology. The MBTI is their daily self-serving bias. Also >>29346735 is clearly baiting.
>>29346735
>just accept them for what they are
who do you think I am ? a jehova witness ? the MBTI isn't Jesus it's not something people accept or refuse like they want.
It must have a scientific validation
>>29346785
>it's wrong to try and quantify human behaviors and traits
>>29346807
>It must have a scientific validation
What on Earth are you talking about? First, there is no arbitrary distinction of 'human' behaviour. All -- ALL -- measurements are equally capable of being reliable and valid. There is strictly zero difference between measuring the property of mass and measuring the property of being a nice person.
Second, MBTI has plenty of validity, just like 'being good' and 'being okay' and 'being cool'.
Please don't be STEM students, my faith in humanity can only take so many more blows.
MBTI is a load of shit
>>29346858
you are saying so much shit, you're probably baiting
also idk what is STEM bc i'm not american but i'm majoring as a math student
>>29346910
How exactly am I wrong, o math one?
>>29346918
>There is strictly zero difference between measuring the property of mass and measuring the property of being a nice person
>>29346935
Correct. 'Being a nice person' is a trait whose exact manner of measurement is particular to the study and yields a (study-particular as well) quantification of the trait in question, which yields particular correlations. 'Having mass' is a trait whose exact manner of measurement is particular to the study and yields a (study-particular as well) quantification of the trait in question, which yields particular correlations, too. QED.
Thats cool OP.
This is now a MBTI Type and IQ thread.
http://test.mensa.no/
ENTP, 125 IQ
Who here/mediocre intelligence/?
>>29346961
oh yeah lol ^^ now that you have explained to me i understand the usefulness of MBTI it makes so much more sense (so much more science teehehe) ^^
>>29346785
>I'm so much more than just three letters
OK then. Relevance?
>>29347019
>tfw INTP
>tfw 97 IQ
I wish I had some brain to use to make big things. fuck me
>>29347023
'Usefulness' and 'sense' are not meaningful terms.
>>29347019
125 is not mediocre. You're gifted, you fucking retard.
>>29347106
>You're gifted, you fucking retard.
It's been so many times that I wanted to say just that to people denying the importance of their IQs.
MBTI isn't a personality quiz, despite it often being presented as one.
The only thing your MBTI type says about you (assuming it's accurate) is how your brain perceives and processes information. The personality descriptions for each type are stereotypes, and someone may act differently from these stereotypes for any number of reasons.
>>29347106
Not her. But isn't 130 considered gifted?
>>29347106
>You're gifted, you fucking retard
i'm getting some mixed messages here
>>29347140
>someone may act differently from these stereotypes for any number of reasons
Learn to notice appeals to ignorance in your shitposts, you idiot.
>>29347060
you have big brain
must belive
>>29347140
>is how your brain perceives and processes information.
Oh no let this not be. Do you honestly believe that a self assesment gives insight into brain processes.
I need to go outside now and scream really hard. Thanks man.
MBTI isnt the same as horoscopes or astrology.
I will admit, MBTI seems like psuedo-science at best, but hear me out.
Personalities differ from person to person. This is a fact. People can have wildly different personalities, and we aren't entirely sure how personality is developed, or created. Theres evidence that babies have different personalities. Even animals have been shown to have different "personality" traits. We select for favorable traits and characteristics when we domesticated wolves and other animals by, for example, removing from the gene pool the pups that exhibit more aggressive behaviour.
Personalities differ on an individual basis.
Now, as I see it, the aim of the MBTI is to catergorize these personalities. They are attempting to make a generalization about someones personality based on the presence (or lack or presence) of any number of traits.
The question is, can personality be quantified and measured? Can we say "this person is more short tempered than this person", or "this person is much more calm than this person"? In my opinion, I think yes, personality can be measured. But I do not think that we currently have to ability to measure it with very much accuracy.
So yes, I dont think the MBTI is a good system, but it has a scientific purpose. It is not on the same level as astrology, since astrology is literally just making things up.
>>29347207
>I need to go outside now and scream really hard
not him, but you're cringy af.
>>29347207
>Do you honestly believe that a self assesment gives insight into brain processes.
>>29347229
>I do not think that we currently have to ability to measure it with very much accuracy
Teenagers who think they understand science are the worst.
>>29347252
Do you disagree? I mean at its simplest form, all MBTI is asking is "what personality traits do you possess", and then proceeds to extrapolate from that. I dont think its correct though.
>>29347288
Yes, I disagree, because you both fall into the extremely common misconception that there are 'true' or 'accurate' measurements of personality (intelligence, ...). It's not unlike believing that there are 'true' definitions of words. All that exists is a measurement and its correlations. There is no 'proper' measurement of any facet of personality which we strive to chance upon and capture. Measurement is as measurement correlates. That's why I intentionally gave examples of 'vague' traits such as 'being a nice person'. We by trial and error find measurements which betray relationships with more and more other relationships, but there is absolutely nothing which tells us that calmness 'should' be measured in a specific way. Consequently, there is no such thing as an 'accurate' measurement either. The delusion of existence of accuracy is basically your egoistic attachment to your definitions of words which you can't recognize in yourself.
>>29347373
(Of course, that accuracy is a misconception in no way stops people from successfully using it against certain measurements in society, for instance by meaninglessly accusing IQ of 'not truly measuring intelligence'.)
>>29347252
So who the fuck are you? You think you got some authority on the subject? Within the field of psychology it has been discredited and is no longer in use.
>>29347233
You meant to say that comment is cringy as fuck stupid.
>>29346535
MBTI is valid and horoscope is invalid, but MBTI is less useful than other type tests because it uses spectra rather than measuring categories and the spectra are somewhat arbitrary.
It's useful but not even close to comprehensive.
What's good about it is that it's simple and easy to understand. What's bad about it is that it puts people in boxes prematurely and doesn't account for lots of variances.
>>29347469
>Within the field of psychology it has been discredited
This only confirms that psychologists are tools. MBTI is exactly as scientific as neuroimaging and phrenology.
>>29347470
This guy more or less gets it.
>>29347498
>>29347470
(Though it should be added that astrology is scientific too considering that month of birth AND planetary positions both have clear influences on personality.)
Ah you fucks are something. Pseudoscience is my weak spot. I know that half of this thread is full of nonsense and trolling but I can't help myself.
Fuck you all.
>>29347639
I doubt more than two of the 13 posters ITT so far acknowledge MBTI in any way. People who misunderstand science are always in the majority.
>>29347019
>mfw roaches think they are in control
>>29347019
>tfw INTP
>tfw only 140 IQ
this bothers me because as an INTP who still uses his brain on the reg i know the limits of my intelligence and can say for certain that a 160+ IQ would make me learn this shit five times as fast
>>29347019
INTP btw
>>29347816
>>29348125
>>29348508
>140+
>on /r9k/
so what went wrong?
>>29348633
internet addiction, my famalam
>>29348633
thinking that all smart people care about is money and fame just like other people is a mistake my friendo :3c
>Do you guys genuinely believe in MBTI ?
In that some people are introverted an others are not. There might be something there. The rest of it is shit. In fact, a majority of psych. studies have yet to be replicated for peer review. That whole field is a fucking joke.
>>29349068
t. I am a loser
the fuck was with that last item? p sure i got by on counting line segments but jesus, wtf man
If for whatever reason you want to completely discard MBTI out of hand because you find it offensive, that's cool.
Eventually you'll mature enough to see that people are radically similar, and that it's wholly feasible, not only for thought processes, but for personalities to share many categorical traits across a wide swathe of people.
But that'd offend you and attack your preconceived notion of individuality, so whatever value or insight you'd be able to glean is not worth recovering.
Really, just admit you hate personality tests and don't want to entertain them because the concept bruises your ego. Don't attempt to invalidate the concept when you're in no informed position to do so.
I'm allegedly INTJ btw.
>>29346618
>I hate those STEMfags
But anon, if psychology was a science, wouldn't you be a STEMfag, too?I think deep down you know its not a real science.
what was the solution to this one? I picked bottom middle
>>29349379
bottom middle is right
>2 small squares = 1 big square
>big square + small square = big square
>>29346535
You're just salty that you got a shitty score
I got a 128 on this thing. The result means jack shit, right?
>>29350170
ye. just subtract 20 points from score to get your actual IQ
>tfw scored 125
>-20
>basically average 105 IQ
feels ok i guess
>>29350170
well, that depends. if you retake the test and get the same score, it'll be a strong validation of your first score. if you improve your score on the second test however, and can explain how you corrected yourself on the problems you got wrong, it's likely that your abilities are more or less the average of the first and second runs.
Can somebody explain the F/T and S/N dimensions to me? I think these are mostly related to perception of your own self image, especialle F/T. Maybe both are lowly correlated with IQ thought but that's it
>>29350876
F/T primarily describes whether you're preoccupied with interpreting the world through emotion or intellect, and S/N is about sticking with your senses and what is readily apparent versus synthesizing information and connecting seemingly unrelated parts into a coherent whole
>>29350997
Quite indeed, what you describe in your second part seems to be a substitue for IQ, am I correct? Then the F/T part seems to be a perception of this
>>29350876
also NT is perceived as correlating higher with IQ because of its optimal arrangement for dealing with information, forming a worldview and whatnot
NT types are also higher at risk for schizotypy because of this; they can be prone to overthinking without humbling/refreshing themselves with new information
>>29351044
IQ tests are pure information, so i would imagine a strong T produces higher scores. it should also be noted that superior intelligence doesn't necessarily correlate with weaker F, but rather with the ability to suppress F when dealing with pure information.
>>29351044
uhh if you mean F/T as a perception of self-image and S/N related to IQ scores, i think N has a slight advantage in matching patterns but not much else. ST is an extremely powerful combination, depending on how much information the ST type takes up throughout their life
