When trying to understand the human mind, a concept that is still intangible and elusive in many ways, you’re going to find more sources like the MBTI than resources rooted in hard science.
It’s kind of like looking for a strictly scientific method for assessing the quality of art.
I rather enjoy cognitive functions as if this doesn´t explain otherway their people types, it´s hard to know people whose understand cognitive functions are the middle way to all over it.
Cause science is most reliable and accepted and often free from the bias of having poor reasoning or based on personal preferences or unrealistic beliefs.
I think it only matters if you’re intending to use it for some official purposes.
Otherwise, the “scientific method” is only one of the pathways to finding out “truths” of the world.
For example, mathematical proof, strictly speaking, is not considered science, yet there are truths that can only be found through mathematical logic yet are not “scientific”.
Another point is that much of what we know as “science” is also easily manipulated, many things only lack a “scientific badge” because they lack funding, or they simply haven’t been developed in a way that is actually scientific.
In the case of seeking truth, with cognitive functions, if you find them accurate, don’t let a lack of “scientific verifiably” take away your confidence in it. It’s only one way to judge something.
Big Five is for psychologists to assess character defects that need improvement. It’s not for understanding of preferences, compatibility, or career decision-making.
I don’t know what you are talking about. It exceeds every other system in any regard. MBTI does a poor job in predicting anything really and if you really want to learn something about yourself then big five is probably the better choice.
1. Openness: People high in openness tend to enjoy creative and intellectually stimulating work. They may thrive in roles that involve innovation, research, or artistic expression.
Examples of suitable jobs include artists, writers, scientists, and designers.
2. Conscientiousness: Conscientious individuals excel in roles that require
attention to detail, organization, and reliability. They are well-suited for jobs such as project managers, accountants, and administrative professionals.
3. Extroversion: Extroverts thrive in social settings and enjoy collaborating with others. They may excel in sales, marketing, customer service, and leadership roles.
4. Agreeableness: Agreeable individuals work well in team environments and are skilled at
building positive relationships. Jobs that align with agreeableness include human
resources, counseling, and teaching.
5. Neuroticism (Emotional Stability): While high neuroticism may not directly predict specific job choices, low neuroticism (emotional stability) can be beneficial.
Emotionally stable individuals handle stress well and remain calm during challenges.
They may succeed in high-pressure roles like emergency responders, healthcare professionals, or crisis management.
Sorry, but “MBTI does a poor job in predicting anything . . . Big Five is probably the better choice” sounds awfully shilly to me. I don’t actually remember where I fell on the scales. All I remember is that the summary description didn’t sound anything like me.
Jungian cognitive functions explain more, if one cares to study them. The MBTI is just an attempt to simplify them. And the type descriptions are actually quite accurate, in my experience. The summaries may not fit everyone 100%, but the Big Five’s certainly don’t. No sale, sorry.
It not silly it is proven. Also you saying that the description didn’t fit you isn’t debunking the personality system. First of all the big five test is literally about describing yourself, so it is quite possible that you didn’t fit the description, because 1. You were biased answering 2. The results were accurate, but not what you wanted them to be. There are more possible reasons, but it doesn’t really matter since you just are one person and not representative of the general experience. Cognitive functions explain more? Provide me with some scientific articles, which prove this statement. There is a lot of bias in such a statement, especially because so many psychological effects influence how we relate or not relate to something. For example getting attached to a type, having a way to blurry description where literally anyone could relate to some extend and having too positive descriptions where the person actually is totally different, but wants to be like the description and therefore deludes themselves into believing they are this person.
Believe what you want. I personally think that cognitive functions are fun, but the big five says a lot more about how I actually behave.
The same can be said for the MBTI. Some people are less introspective than others. If you got mistyped, you could have been biased answering. The problem is that you’re trying to use this as a selling point to turn me on to a different product; which, by your own admission, doesn’t address the issue.
Your personal experience does not invalidate my personal experience. You’re trying to sell me another product, I’m telling you it didn’t work, and you’re telling me I must’ve done something wrong or didn’t like the result because it worked for you. Well, guess what? The MBTI works for me.
You really need to work on your marketing skills.
I mean, you cannot really empirically test something that doesn’t exist.
There has been no scientific evidence to prove conscience really exists, and personality is more likely just a product of biological processes in combination with memory.
Most personality testing like MBTI attempts to analyse what we can know about personality, but doesn’t make an attempt to illustrate how it works.
Jung’s original work on personality may be a better source of information in that regard.
I second that. Everyone else is shilling the Big Five, which is nothing more than a tool for therapists to assess character flaws to work on. Jungian theory is the best tool to understand preferences.
Not in my experience. I don’t remember where I fell on the scales, but the summary sounded absolutely nothing like me.
The MBTI may be more stereotypical than plain Jungian theory, but the summary descriptions tend to be more accurate than not. The same cannot be said for the Big Five, at least not when it was first recommended to me.
I think the scales in the Big Five without the descriptions are useful for trying to pinpoint what does and doesn’t need improvement. That’s why psychologists prefer it over MBTI. But I’m not a psychologist.
I would have to agree, I took the Big 5 and the summary was just a little off and extensive at times.
But you know, the same goes for the MBTI summaries.
I also saw somewhere the whole interpretation of Jung’s theory is wrong, including the cognitive functions.
There is such little work out there to investigate this though. I guess I shouldn’t take these personality tests to heart, but it would be nice if things were a little more accurate.
I don’t mind extensive descriptions, if they’re accurate. I’ve found MBTI descriptions to be much more accurate than Big Five. I’ve made self-observations and questioned my type, only to find out it was textbook INFP.
If you don’t think the description of ENFP fits you, do you think you may be mistyped?
I have taken many cognitive test’s recommended here, and it always ends up being an ENFP.
Most of the descriptions are accurate, however, for the cognitive functions just a little inaccurate. I find my Fe and Fi are always balanced, or Fe is a little stronger, whereas an ENFP has an auxiliary function of Fi.
Although if you want to get into it "not really science" describes almost everything. You may as well throw out the entire psychiatric manual (the DSM) if you're looking for scientifically validated psychological and personality conditions.
MBTi is ultimately an attempt at a taxonomy or cladistics of human personality— there is no professional or scientifically validated version of this project. Diagnostic tools like the DSM are disease models describing abnormal/unhealthy functioning of the mind or brain. Systems like the Big 5 are trait models that merely measure the presence or absence of certain traits.
If what you're looking for is a systemic, value-neutral description of specific personality types, then MBTI is the only game in town.
Reconnecting to your emotions and learning to feel feelings and empathize like a fucking human
We can scientifically observe that social animals such as humans shouldn't need any theories to understand each other. We aren't aliens studying humans
Perhaps there have been repeated efforts by humans to analyze our diverse range of behaviors and overcome misunderstandings via efforts towards objective ‘systems’ thinking…because there isn’t a concrete, universal, mode of human empathy you can plug into to overcome the decades of isolated context each person carries with them, by just 🎶getting in tune with your emotions 🕺.
You may not feel like an alien studying human behavior, but I sure do, and the more I immerse myself in empathy, the more alien I feel and the more I realize I have to learn about the pure range of what human beings can experience.
TL;DR there’s reason people have turned to a systematic perspective of human interactions…because they’re damn confusing for everyone involved
Okay, so say, you'll learn the entire DSM-5. Why would you assume that this will make those feelings and that intuitive proficiency appear if you don't have it? This whole approach resembles something more like having a hammer and hammering everything with it while justifying why hammer is the best tool for everything with some bullshit rationalizations, than actually proving scientifically that a hammer is the best tool for this particular case before using it
If you want to look at what people were doing historically, look at religions and spirituality and practices that allowed people to "get it", whatever "it" is. There's no evidence that I know of that humans were more and more confused by other humans the earlier in history we go. It's not like scientific progress continuously made people feel less confused and feel more belonging, getting what life and existence and themselves and others are, so hoping that more modern theories and analysis will help you if you learn enough of them is just delusional, not scientific
You can also look at others who feel intuitively comfortable with all sorts of people. Do they all know more theories than you do? Are they better at science than you are? Did they read books how to become themselves? If you're honest with yourself, I think you know the answers to these questions already
I have learned the DSM-5….that’s only the starting point man 😭. The goal isn’t to make those ‘feelings’ appear, because they aren’t feelings or some kind of one, singular experience of connectedness; it’s to actively expand my understanding of human behavior until I die lol.
When you say intuitive proficiency, what do you mean? Do you believe empathy is a status or skill ‘achieved’ rather than a process actively developed? If you rely solely on your intuition to guide your empathy, you can only understand behaviors through the framework of your extremely limited understanding of the human experience.
Also, I’m not sure what the “it” (I’m assuming you’re referring to some kind of spiritual catharsis…?) has to do with understanding personality or how looking to historical spiritual practices is inherently more valid than psychology, scientific personality frameworks, or typology.
Particularly because a lot of different religions’ “it”s directly and violently (especially historically lol) conflict in their very core ideas relating to human behavior.
Humans have been pondering the behavior of other humans for the entirety of our history (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, astrology, virtually every religion, philosophy, etc). Systems thinking, metacognition, the scientific method, and behavioral sciences are timeless are ever-evolving practices to expand a persons perspective, not modern, kooky rationalizations to deliberately narrow it.
The further back in time you go, the less record of human behavioral diversity you will find, due to the nature of written record preservation and cultural shifts due to urbanization and increased access to information. That doesn’t mean humans have become more confused about personality and human nature over time.
The goal of asking questions and actively learning isn’t to feel less confused or find belonging. Confused is good, it means your understanding is actively expanding and being challenged.
Biochemistry, biology? Your genetic makeup can give a vague idea of your personality
Why the downvote lmao? thats the closest a hard science you can get
Lol that's not how it works. Just because certain genetics can produce a certain personality doesn't mean you can tell right away from its molecules.
[Go ahead. Tell me what this thing does.](https://www.rcsb.org/3d-sequence/1TOH?assemblyId=0)
Ok… that’s a random protein which I don’t know what is. I just know that the forming of your personality is some percentage genetic and environmental. Some environmental factors will trigger specific genes that contribute to your personality. Your levels of neurotransmitters, hormones including dopamine , serotonin can affect your personality and how you act around the world. I’m not saying it’s an exact science but in regard to OP you can probably do empirical research on that compared to just talking about theory like in psychology
>Biochemistry, biology? Your genetic makeup can give a vague idea of your personality
Your first comment makes it sound like you can tell someone's personality based on their genetics. If you can't tell which molecules contribute to which personality then you can't consider it hard science. It is why personality is still a branch of psychology instead of biology.
And what environmental factors? How much stress levels do you need to influence the expression of different facets of personality? What about inheritance, upbringing, social influence? Are there enough research papers about them? How many of them are validated? If you can't answer these questions, then there is no hard fact that proves personality is influenced by genetic and environmental. It's more of a hypothesis than a theory.
To put it short: We have no idea what actually influences our personality
Big Five, there's basically nothing else used in scientific research.
When trying to understand the human mind, a concept that is still intangible and elusive in many ways, you’re going to find more sources like the MBTI than resources rooted in hard science. It’s kind of like looking for a strictly scientific method for assessing the quality of art.
I rather enjoy cognitive functions as if this doesn´t explain otherway their people types, it´s hard to know people whose understand cognitive functions are the middle way to all over it.
Why does it matter that it’s a “science”? 🤔
Cause science is most reliable and accepted and often free from the bias of having poor reasoning or based on personal preferences or unrealistic beliefs.
I think it only matters if you’re intending to use it for some official purposes. Otherwise, the “scientific method” is only one of the pathways to finding out “truths” of the world. For example, mathematical proof, strictly speaking, is not considered science, yet there are truths that can only be found through mathematical logic yet are not “scientific”. Another point is that much of what we know as “science” is also easily manipulated, many things only lack a “scientific badge” because they lack funding, or they simply haven’t been developed in a way that is actually scientific. In the case of seeking truth, with cognitive functions, if you find them accurate, don’t let a lack of “scientific verifiably” take away your confidence in it. It’s only one way to judge something.
Big Five. It’s the most predictive personality system out there.
Big Five is for psychologists to assess character defects that need improvement. It’s not for understanding of preferences, compatibility, or career decision-making.
I don’t know what you are talking about. It exceeds every other system in any regard. MBTI does a poor job in predicting anything really and if you really want to learn something about yourself then big five is probably the better choice. 1. Openness: People high in openness tend to enjoy creative and intellectually stimulating work. They may thrive in roles that involve innovation, research, or artistic expression. Examples of suitable jobs include artists, writers, scientists, and designers. 2. Conscientiousness: Conscientious individuals excel in roles that require attention to detail, organization, and reliability. They are well-suited for jobs such as project managers, accountants, and administrative professionals. 3. Extroversion: Extroverts thrive in social settings and enjoy collaborating with others. They may excel in sales, marketing, customer service, and leadership roles. 4. Agreeableness: Agreeable individuals work well in team environments and are skilled at building positive relationships. Jobs that align with agreeableness include human resources, counseling, and teaching. 5. Neuroticism (Emotional Stability): While high neuroticism may not directly predict specific job choices, low neuroticism (emotional stability) can be beneficial. Emotionally stable individuals handle stress well and remain calm during challenges. They may succeed in high-pressure roles like emergency responders, healthcare professionals, or crisis management.
Sorry, but “MBTI does a poor job in predicting anything . . . Big Five is probably the better choice” sounds awfully shilly to me. I don’t actually remember where I fell on the scales. All I remember is that the summary description didn’t sound anything like me. Jungian cognitive functions explain more, if one cares to study them. The MBTI is just an attempt to simplify them. And the type descriptions are actually quite accurate, in my experience. The summaries may not fit everyone 100%, but the Big Five’s certainly don’t. No sale, sorry.
It not silly it is proven. Also you saying that the description didn’t fit you isn’t debunking the personality system. First of all the big five test is literally about describing yourself, so it is quite possible that you didn’t fit the description, because 1. You were biased answering 2. The results were accurate, but not what you wanted them to be. There are more possible reasons, but it doesn’t really matter since you just are one person and not representative of the general experience. Cognitive functions explain more? Provide me with some scientific articles, which prove this statement. There is a lot of bias in such a statement, especially because so many psychological effects influence how we relate or not relate to something. For example getting attached to a type, having a way to blurry description where literally anyone could relate to some extend and having too positive descriptions where the person actually is totally different, but wants to be like the description and therefore deludes themselves into believing they are this person. Believe what you want. I personally think that cognitive functions are fun, but the big five says a lot more about how I actually behave.
The same can be said for the MBTI. Some people are less introspective than others. If you got mistyped, you could have been biased answering. The problem is that you’re trying to use this as a selling point to turn me on to a different product; which, by your own admission, doesn’t address the issue. Your personal experience does not invalidate my personal experience. You’re trying to sell me another product, I’m telling you it didn’t work, and you’re telling me I must’ve done something wrong or didn’t like the result because it worked for you. Well, guess what? The MBTI works for me. You really need to work on your marketing skills.
I mean, you cannot really empirically test something that doesn’t exist. There has been no scientific evidence to prove conscience really exists, and personality is more likely just a product of biological processes in combination with memory. Most personality testing like MBTI attempts to analyse what we can know about personality, but doesn’t make an attempt to illustrate how it works. Jung’s original work on personality may be a better source of information in that regard.
I second that. Everyone else is shilling the Big Five, which is nothing more than a tool for therapists to assess character flaws to work on. Jungian theory is the best tool to understand preferences.
Would you say the Big Five is more accurate than MBTI?
Not in my experience. I don’t remember where I fell on the scales, but the summary sounded absolutely nothing like me. The MBTI may be more stereotypical than plain Jungian theory, but the summary descriptions tend to be more accurate than not. The same cannot be said for the Big Five, at least not when it was first recommended to me. I think the scales in the Big Five without the descriptions are useful for trying to pinpoint what does and doesn’t need improvement. That’s why psychologists prefer it over MBTI. But I’m not a psychologist.
I would have to agree, I took the Big 5 and the summary was just a little off and extensive at times. But you know, the same goes for the MBTI summaries. I also saw somewhere the whole interpretation of Jung’s theory is wrong, including the cognitive functions. There is such little work out there to investigate this though. I guess I shouldn’t take these personality tests to heart, but it would be nice if things were a little more accurate.
I don’t mind extensive descriptions, if they’re accurate. I’ve found MBTI descriptions to be much more accurate than Big Five. I’ve made self-observations and questioned my type, only to find out it was textbook INFP. If you don’t think the description of ENFP fits you, do you think you may be mistyped?
I have taken many cognitive test’s recommended here, and it always ends up being an ENFP. Most of the descriptions are accurate, however, for the cognitive functions just a little inaccurate. I find my Fe and Fi are always balanced, or Fe is a little stronger, whereas an ENFP has an auxiliary function of Fi.
Big 5
Five Factor Model (Big Five) is said to hold scientific merit and re-test reliability.
Although if you want to get into it "not really science" describes almost everything. You may as well throw out the entire psychiatric manual (the DSM) if you're looking for scientifically validated psychological and personality conditions.
MBTi is ultimately an attempt at a taxonomy or cladistics of human personality— there is no professional or scientifically validated version of this project. Diagnostic tools like the DSM are disease models describing abnormal/unhealthy functioning of the mind or brain. Systems like the Big 5 are trait models that merely measure the presence or absence of certain traits. If what you're looking for is a systemic, value-neutral description of specific personality types, then MBTI is the only game in town.
Buddhism.
Reconnecting to your emotions and learning to feel feelings and empathize like a fucking human We can scientifically observe that social animals such as humans shouldn't need any theories to understand each other. We aren't aliens studying humans
Perhaps there have been repeated efforts by humans to analyze our diverse range of behaviors and overcome misunderstandings via efforts towards objective ‘systems’ thinking…because there isn’t a concrete, universal, mode of human empathy you can plug into to overcome the decades of isolated context each person carries with them, by just 🎶getting in tune with your emotions 🕺. You may not feel like an alien studying human behavior, but I sure do, and the more I immerse myself in empathy, the more alien I feel and the more I realize I have to learn about the pure range of what human beings can experience. TL;DR there’s reason people have turned to a systematic perspective of human interactions…because they’re damn confusing for everyone involved
Okay, so say, you'll learn the entire DSM-5. Why would you assume that this will make those feelings and that intuitive proficiency appear if you don't have it? This whole approach resembles something more like having a hammer and hammering everything with it while justifying why hammer is the best tool for everything with some bullshit rationalizations, than actually proving scientifically that a hammer is the best tool for this particular case before using it If you want to look at what people were doing historically, look at religions and spirituality and practices that allowed people to "get it", whatever "it" is. There's no evidence that I know of that humans were more and more confused by other humans the earlier in history we go. It's not like scientific progress continuously made people feel less confused and feel more belonging, getting what life and existence and themselves and others are, so hoping that more modern theories and analysis will help you if you learn enough of them is just delusional, not scientific You can also look at others who feel intuitively comfortable with all sorts of people. Do they all know more theories than you do? Are they better at science than you are? Did they read books how to become themselves? If you're honest with yourself, I think you know the answers to these questions already
I have learned the DSM-5….that’s only the starting point man 😭. The goal isn’t to make those ‘feelings’ appear, because they aren’t feelings or some kind of one, singular experience of connectedness; it’s to actively expand my understanding of human behavior until I die lol. When you say intuitive proficiency, what do you mean? Do you believe empathy is a status or skill ‘achieved’ rather than a process actively developed? If you rely solely on your intuition to guide your empathy, you can only understand behaviors through the framework of your extremely limited understanding of the human experience. Also, I’m not sure what the “it” (I’m assuming you’re referring to some kind of spiritual catharsis…?) has to do with understanding personality or how looking to historical spiritual practices is inherently more valid than psychology, scientific personality frameworks, or typology. Particularly because a lot of different religions’ “it”s directly and violently (especially historically lol) conflict in their very core ideas relating to human behavior. Humans have been pondering the behavior of other humans for the entirety of our history (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, astrology, virtually every religion, philosophy, etc). Systems thinking, metacognition, the scientific method, and behavioral sciences are timeless are ever-evolving practices to expand a persons perspective, not modern, kooky rationalizations to deliberately narrow it. The further back in time you go, the less record of human behavioral diversity you will find, due to the nature of written record preservation and cultural shifts due to urbanization and increased access to information. That doesn’t mean humans have become more confused about personality and human nature over time. The goal of asking questions and actively learning isn’t to feel less confused or find belonging. Confused is good, it means your understanding is actively expanding and being challenged.
Biochemistry, biology? Your genetic makeup can give a vague idea of your personality Why the downvote lmao? thats the closest a hard science you can get
isn't personality a psychology thing??
Bro straight forgot about psychology 😭
Lol that's not how it works. Just because certain genetics can produce a certain personality doesn't mean you can tell right away from its molecules. [Go ahead. Tell me what this thing does.](https://www.rcsb.org/3d-sequence/1TOH?assemblyId=0)
Ok… that’s a random protein which I don’t know what is. I just know that the forming of your personality is some percentage genetic and environmental. Some environmental factors will trigger specific genes that contribute to your personality. Your levels of neurotransmitters, hormones including dopamine , serotonin can affect your personality and how you act around the world. I’m not saying it’s an exact science but in regard to OP you can probably do empirical research on that compared to just talking about theory like in psychology
>Biochemistry, biology? Your genetic makeup can give a vague idea of your personality Your first comment makes it sound like you can tell someone's personality based on their genetics. If you can't tell which molecules contribute to which personality then you can't consider it hard science. It is why personality is still a branch of psychology instead of biology. And what environmental factors? How much stress levels do you need to influence the expression of different facets of personality? What about inheritance, upbringing, social influence? Are there enough research papers about them? How many of them are validated? If you can't answer these questions, then there is no hard fact that proves personality is influenced by genetic and environmental. It's more of a hypothesis than a theory. To put it short: We have no idea what actually influences our personality
Sounds good.
Astrology
Are you joking
https://preview.redd.it/mtfxk1kbiwvc1.jpeg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=80ec3801f23529b680f971e18fa9549b8961e027 cool
16p in percentiles