# MBTI is laughable dogma.



## phoenixpinion (Dec 27, 2012)

Proof? "A mermaid is like 55% human and 45% fish, yet no one in their right mind would say it's a human. It bears qualities that humans never can, and vice versa. 

I am 55% feeler and 45% thinker, yet according to MBTI I am a feeler."

(the problem with MBTI - no middle ground)

Let's say the right brain handles feeling, and the left brain handles thinking. That would mean that there is no such thing as a cognitive function (T in this case) since that would mean that person never uses their right brain, which all scientific evidence shows that everyone uses all their brains. If you for example use 55% feeling and 45% thinking as in the quote above, you would no longer use feeling or thinking, but a unique mixture of the two. Proof? 2 H's + 1 O = H2O -> 55% feeling + 45% thinking = F1,222T . This F1,222T cognitive function is entirely unique, a new separate function, just as H2O is completely different molecule the H atoms or O atoms. This is in tune with the modern neuroplasticity theory of the human brain. Science is great since its reputation is vested in its awesome ability to debunk popular accepted dogmas. Just because religion is gone, doesn't mean the religious mindset isn't gone. MBTI is an example of the dogmatic religious mindset, a sort of tunnel vision which views reality dualistically, a battle between opposites (between personality types). While in reality, the opposites seek to merge into new beings whenever the opportunity arises or the requirements set (= nature of alchemy or now "chemistry")(hence why the male is attracted the female and vice versa) Hence, it is more likely for a mature person to have undergone more intertwining between cognitive functions, between the different areas of the brain. Hence why Jung called the balanced personality the True Self. Jung must cry himself to sleep each night in the non-physical dimensions looking how people have used his theories in the completely wrong way (kinda like how religion totally twisted the teachings of the guy Jesus Christ to their biddings over a period. Jesus was actually a totally non-religious person if you think about it. He even viewed the priests of old as his nemesis'. His goal was actually to destroy religion, not to create a new).

The fact that pure thinkers (xNxT's) haven't even figured this out yet, shows that reason alone (T) is just as worse than faith (F), and not realistic. There is a reason why not only religion (a product of putting feeling/faith on a pedestal), but philosophy (a product of putting thinking/reason on a pedestal) aswell don't mix with science. Richard Dawkins for example, is not a scientist but a philosopher masquerading as a scientist. Else, he would not spread ancient materialist philosophy, totally out-of-tune with quantum physics. When thinkers start rationalizing MBTI as a model for reality, it means they're on a thinking ego trip, which MBTI provides them because it tells them thinkers exist, even opposite to their "simplistic irrational feeler" counterparts (as if irrationality is less of a virtue than rationality).


----------



## Recon777 (May 24, 2013)

Your MB type isn't a complete definition of who you are. I have an INTJ friend who is extremely different than me. All your type represents, is the general way you process information and understand the world. Its only a base template to gain a lot of insight into the "natural, unaltered" you. All your life experiences, self improvements, traumas, circumstances, spiritual beliefs, etc. will alter you as a person. MBTI is startlingly accurate when it is understood properly, not used out of context, and applied how it is meant to be applied.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

MBTI is about preference. We all feel and think and we all use every function the MBTI talks about.

Also, those percentages are bullshit. They are not what the theory is about. They come from online tests that can't be considered scientific in the slightest (if MBTI itself can be considered that). 55% thinking implies one could be 100% thinking, which is just.. stupid.

Just because some people misuse a system doesn't mean that the system itself is bogus.

"The fact that pure thinkers..." There are no pure thinkers.


----------



## Devrim (Jan 26, 2013)

If you don't like how it describes you,
Then don't listen to it,
You're the only one who knows what goes on in that head of yours!

And Psychological theories(Such as MBTI),
Do NOT work with absolutes,
And never will be able to!


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Mermaids are real? :O


----------



## Khiro (Nov 28, 2012)

I'm fairly sure your argument would only make sense if each individual was only driven by two functions.


----------



## nujabes (May 18, 2012)

wow you really figured it out!


----------



## Randroth (Nov 25, 2010)

Yeah, knock that strawman down. YOU GO, GIRLFRIEND!


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

phoenixpinion said:


> Proof? "A mermaid is like 55% human and 45% fish, yet no one in their right mind would say it's a human. It bears qualities that humans never can, and vice versa.
> 
> I am 55% feeler and 45% thinker, yet according to MBTI I am a feeler."
> 
> ...


You do realize that some of what you've said in this approach seems pretty typical for Feelers types abusing T functions? For example, why the unnecessary insult of "pure thinkers" -- have you considered the possibility that some of us Thinkers already know all this from Day #1, yet we simply have moved beyond it and only use MBTI as a tool to the limits of its actual ability, versus over-reliance? It's old news.

A lot of your main paragraph seems also to be focusing on quantifiable measurement versus qualitative/fuzzy measurement, regarding percentage ranking. It's like Rotten Tomatoes, honestly; an 88% on a rating doesn't mean the movie is 88% good, it only means that 88% of reviewers thought the movie was better than it was worse. A movie that would only grade a 51% would rate the same as a movie that would grade a 93%, as long as 88% of the reviewers agree it a thumbs up vs a thumbs down. The people using MBTI professionally should know this, although I guess it's kind of confusing for new MBTI users. 

All that said, I agree with you about Dawkins and others. Yes, there's a number of prominent people who are less driven by data and are more just proselytizers for their particular worldview, even if they tout quantitative figures and processes. 

People shouldn't be using MBTI to mean more than it does... and with only 16 types, to fit billions of people into those categories, a lot of generalization will occur. It looks at trends and motivations in personality, but obviously there can be a lot of different flavors and people assigned the same type can look different or have certain individual bents compared to others. It's just looking at generalizations.


----------



## phoenixpinion (Dec 27, 2012)

Recon777 said:


> Your MB type isn't a complete definition of who you are. I have an INTJ friend who is extremely different than me. All your type represents, is the general way you process information and understand the world. Its only a base template to gain a lot of insight into the "natural, unaltered" you.


No, I am going much further than you in saying the base template is totally wrong. All these little anomalies piling up everywhere are only there because the theory smells like BS when applied in RL. 

And yes, the base template does matter. Try building a pyramid with the template of a cubicle. And this is exactly what MBTI professionals are doing, they are trying to understand human psychology and relations with an entirely faulty base framework, a framework of duality. It's like religious people who start with the base question, "What must I do for God to like me?", never asking themselves "What if there isn't a God in the first place?"
MBTI'ers: "What must I do for the INFJ to like me?", never realising there was no INFJ in the first place.


----------



## phoenixpinion (Dec 27, 2012)

Mzansi said:


> And Psychological theories(Such as MBTI),
> Do NOT work with absolutes,
> And never will be able to!


Omg, I'm not the one working with absolutes, the MBTI is, which is exactly my point. I'm simply exposing the absolutes, and you think I'm then the one being absolutist? What are you smoking? MBTI theory perhaps?


----------



## phoenixpinion (Dec 27, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> Mermaids are real? :O


According to the internet, yes:

https://www.google.be/search?client...14,d.d2k&fp=a640b3fe62771bab&biw=1120&bih=594


----------



## phoenixpinion (Dec 27, 2012)

The MBTI also views personality types as a lineair progression of multiple functions: e.g. the entp uses: Ne -> Ti -> Fe -> Si -> Ni -> Te -> Fi -> Se . The lineair mindset however, is a product of the concept of lineair time, which has also been proven now to be an illusion. I'd imagine that in reality this entp would use ALL functions at once, although not in the same quantity. 

Also, if one uses 60% feeling, one must by equation also use 40% thinking, because feeling and thinking are like the negative and positive pole on the SAME SPECTRUM. Without feeling, thinking wouldn't exist and vice versa (the more you think, the less you feel and vice versa). And to the thinkers that say: hey, we have emotions. Yes, indeed, except your emotion is in its potential state, the seed, while the feeler has the emotion in its activated state, the flower. Therefore, it is impossible for one to use 60% feeling and 20% or 60% thinking for example. Yet, according to the all-knowing mbti, this sure is possible????? LIE. Proven by mathematics.

I can go on all night, until you have no choice but to admit this stuff is pure unquestioned BS and you were a fool for taking it more serious than pokemon.

Edit: The fact that this stuff is nowadays used professionally in the business environment around the world shows that capitalism is a stupid philosophy and the capitalists who rule us are monkeys who think they're einstein.


----------



## lightwing (Feb 17, 2013)

phoenixpinion said:


> Edit: The fact that this stuff is nowadays used professionally in the business environment around the world shows that capitalism is a stupid philosophy and the capitalists who rule us are monkeys who think they're einstein.


Thank you for finally being honest with us.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

> I'd imagine that in reality this entp would use ALL functions at once, although not in the same quantity


So basically, preference for some over the other.



> I can go on all night, until you have no choice but to admit this stuff is pure unquestioned BS and you were a fool for taking it more serious than pokemon.


You are always assuming we haven't questioned it. Also, maybe you are the fool for so easily dismissing it? Ever thought of that?



> Edit: The fact that this stuff is nowadays used professionally in the business environment around the world shows that capitalism is a stupid philosophy and the capitalists who rule us are monkeys who think they're einstein.


That would be the ability to control your own company and not capitalism itself. And yes, they are monkeys, hairless monkeys which are also known as **** sapiens sapiens. 



> The fact that pure thinkers (xNxT's) haven't even figured this out yet, shows that reason alone (T) is just as worse than faith (F)


The feeling is not about faith, it is about values. 
And what are these "pure thinkers" that you speak of?

Read up kiddo!
www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Psychological_Types
Really Me

This thread is just an attempt to troll people tho. Simply silly. What are you actually even doing here if you think it is BS? I am personally mature enough to not stick around things I find to be complete BS, nor do I spend too much energy trying to prove why I think it is BS unlike someone else ("I can go on all night, until you have no choice but to admit this stuff is pure unquestioned BS and you were a fool for taking it more serious than pokemon.").
And no one who considers themselves to have a rational mind would ever *completely *dismiss the possibility of Pokemons existing somewhere since theory says that there are an unlimited amount of possible universes and also because we don't even know this entire universe.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

phoenixpinion said:


> According to the internet, yes:
> 
> https://www.google.be/search?client=firefox-beta&hs=Hbv&rls=org.mozilla:nlfficial&q=the%20little%20mermaid&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.47008514,d.ZG4&biw=1120&bih=594&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=nl&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&authuser=0&ei=rYqfUZHFKMWHhQeejoHIDg#um=1&client=firefox-beta&hs=xbv&rls=org.mozilla:nl%3Aofficial&hl=nl&authuser=0&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=mermaid&oq=mermaid&gs_l=img.3..0l10.1504.1504.2.1803.1.1.0.0.0.0.96.96.1.1.0...0.0...1c.1.14.img.CXqy5fRtGoQ&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.47008514,d.d2k&fp=a640b3fe62771bab&biw=1120&bih=594


Some of those mermaids are hawt! I wonder where you put it...


----------



## lightwing (Feb 17, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> Some of those mermaids are hawt! I wonder where you put it...


With fish, you don't.

fish (animal) : Reproduction -- Encyclopedia Britannica


----------



## phoenixpinion (Dec 27, 2012)

Acerbusvenator said:


> So basically, preference for some over the other.


Except the fact that preference still implies that there exist opposites (some over the other like you put it) to choose from or 'prefer' (e.g. "I prefer to think", or "I prefer to feel"). What I am saying is that there is no such thing as thinking or feeling. An 70%T 30%F would not think nor feel. When he thinks he would then always have feelings mixed into his thoughts. He would not have a preference for thinking, but a preference for his unique mixture of 70%T 30%F. Only a 100%T 0%F would have a preference for thinking(since everyone else with not such an extremist personality would mix feelings with thoughts 24/7) and would fit a personality type, however, that person with zero values would better be defined as a psychopath instead of an ENTJ or INTP.

Basically, when I'm saying that the ENTP (or any other personality) uses all his functions *simultaneously* in different quantities, it doesn't mean he prefers some functions over the other (or he uses that function more than that one), it means he uses only one function, the ENTP function, a mixture of different quantities of all the functions, e.g. the 90%N 10%S 75%T 25%F entp function, or the 60%N 45%F 55%T 40%S entp function. You can see how these two entp's are completely different and unique. I also believe this mixture changes all the time. In other words, people's personalities are not set in stone. The brain is way too complex to be set in stone. "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts" aka The brain is greater than its components, the cells with their genetic DNA. The DNA may be set in stone, but the brain isn't.

However, this theory implies that the possible mixtures are infinite in nature, and not limited to 16 types, which everyone with a right mind would agree is much more in-tune with reality.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

@phoenixpinion

^^; as far as I'm concerned, stereotypes are bullshit, the tests don't work (self report testing is flawed) and this is just a simple information processing preference.

*By this I mean:* forget type descriptions and stereotypes, the MBTI can not and will not define your personality to the degree you are led to believe. Learn the functions, understand how you work, extend it with enneagram, big5 and whatever else. PROFIT, improve by knowing your weaknesses and confronting the side of yourself you'd rather deny existing.

If people aren't using this to better themselves then they might as well label themselves whatever they want, as for them it is just a waste of time, especially if ppl are projecting and type themselves as the stereotype they want to be, not how they prefer to process information / who they are.

Between projecting, wanting to be a stereotype other then themselves, misinformation, improper understanding, Barnum effect, shitty self report testing and so on the true self is lost and replaced by something that does more harm then good.

Me: ISFP= Fi - subjective value orientated judgment preference (introverted ethics), supported by direct, realistic sensory data accumulation preference Se. Introverted intuitive preference to support Se by sorting through the data and filtering it for patterns that are useful (cutting away the excess). Extroverted inferior thinking preference, means I value concrete usable data which is validated externally through testing, applicability, usability.

*I am not an emotional artist or god knows what other ridiculous stereotype they invent. I am myself.*


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

phoenixpinion said:


> Except the fact that preference still implies that there exist opposites (some over the other like you put it) to choose from or 'prefer' (e.g. "I prefer to think", or "I prefer to feel"). What I am saying is that there is no such thing as thinking or feeling. An 70%T 30%F would not think nor feel. When he thinks he would then always have feelings mixed into his thoughts. He would not have a preference for thinking, but a preference for his unique mixture of 70%T 30%F. Only a 100%T 0%F would have a preference for thinking(since everyone else with not such an extremist personality would mix feelings with thoughts 24/7) and would fit a personality type, however, that person with zero values would better be defined as a psychopath instead of an ENTJ or INTP.
> 
> Basically, when I'm saying that the ENTP (in this case) uses all his functions *simultaneously* in different quantities, it doesn't mean he prefers some functions over the other (or he uses that function more than that one), it means he uses only one function, the ENTP function, a mixture of different quantities of all the functions (e.g. the 90%N 75%T 25%F 10%S function, or the 60%N 55%T 45%F 40%S function). However, this theory implies that the possible mixtures are infinite in nature, and not limited to 16 types, which everyone with a right mind would agree is much more in-tune with reality.


You just made it clear that you don't understand the theory. You just pretend that you do. 

You seem like a pseudointellectual.



Definition of Pseudointellectual said:


> In more careful use a rather clear distinction is drawn: a pseudointellectual is someone dishonestly or insincerely using the language, style, or topics of an intellectual, but who lacks the goals, morals, or ability of a “genuine” intellectual.* It is someone who acts pretentiously and wishes to win an argument or impress, rather than modestly trying to find the truth – a focus on surface and rhetoric over content. These often involve a superficial understanding of a subject and condescension to the audience, as well as possible self-delusion (not being consciously dishonest, but rather genuinely thinking themself to be behaving as a genuine intellectual despite their incompetence).*


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

phoenixpinion said:


> Except the fact that preference still implies that there exist opposites (some over the other like you put it) to choose from or 'prefer' (e.g. "I prefer to think", or "I prefer to feel"). What I am saying is that there is no such thing as thinking or feeling. An 70%T 30%F would not think nor feel. When he thinks he would then always have feelings mixed into his thoughts. He would not have a preference for thinking, but a preference for his unique mixture of 70%T 30%F. Only a 100%T 0%F would have a preference for thinking(since everyone else with not such an extremist personality would mix feelings with thoughts 24/7) and would fit a personality type, however, that person with zero values would better be defined as a psychopath instead of an ENTJ or INTP.
> 
> Basically, when I'm saying that the ENTP (or any other personality) uses all his functions *simultaneously* in different quantities, it doesn't mean he prefers some functions over the other (or he uses that function more than that one), it means he uses only one function, the ENTP function, a mixture of different quantities of all the functions, e.g. the 90%N 10%S 75%T 25%F entp function, or the 60%N 45%F 55%T 40%S entp function. You can see how these two entp's are completely different and unique. I also believe this mixture changes all the time. In other words, people's personalities are not set in stone. The brain is way too complex to be set in stone. "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts" aka The brain is greater than its components, the cells with their genetic DNA. The DNA may be set in stone, but the brain isn't.
> 
> However, this theory implies that the possible mixtures are infinite in nature, and not limited to 16 types, which everyone with a right mind would agree is much more in-tune with reality.


I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the system. The scores on an exam (and again we're not talking some BS internet test but the actual instrument) indicate the _clarity_ of the preference not the strength of it (now strength may be implied here to a degree but that's another discussion). The MBTI is designed to attempt to indicate a dominant function primarily and then pretty much everything else is based on assumptions, some from Jung, many others from Myers herself and other people who have run and turned the theory into all sorts of other things. 

A high T score does not make you 80% Thinker and 20% feeler for instance. This is a common misunderstanding, one I even got caught up in early on. It means that the test is 80% sure you have a Thinking preference. To add a metric like strength of the function is to start to get into deep waters because the MBTI does not measure functions outright, it implies them and it has no metric to measuring the quality of that function (eg. an inferior function may come across very strongly, say Te in an INFP, and yet the MBTI might erroneously mistake this for a T-preference because it is incapable of knowing the quality of a function, it only attempts to deduce the presence of it). 

Also Feeling does not mean feelings as in emotions. Feeling deals with how we evaluate things.


----------



## Emerson (Mar 13, 2011)

I don't understand.


----------



## Recon777 (May 24, 2013)

Pseudointellectual. lol nice term. I think in common internet-tongue, the word is "troll".

I'd give more credibility to the idea that MBTI was nonsense IF the observable evidence supported it. The fact that you can pigeon hole all of humanity into 16 distinct templates is pretty profound. The fact that the 8 Jung functions don't appear in 40,320 different possible combinations is remarkable. Why don't you see Te and Fe together in the same person naturally? To suggest that the theory is _entirely_ wrong is arrogance in the highest order. A simple observation of humanity demonstrates it to be significantly accurate. Will there be the odd exception? Of course. But that does not dismiss the usefulness of the tool as a whole.


----------



## 37119 (Apr 11, 2012)

phoenixpinion said:


> Proof? "A mermaid is like 55% human and 45% fish, yet no one in their right mind would say it's a human. It bears qualities that humans never can, and vice versa.
> 
> I am 55% feeler and 45% thinker, yet according to MBTI I am a feeler."
> 
> ...


Lol dude ur an ENTP ur supposed to be funny. tell a funny joke


----------



## phoenixpinion (Dec 27, 2012)

Solfonny said:


> Lol dude ur an ENTP ur supposed to be funny. tell a funny joke


I'm not an immature entp that people come to for entertainment. I entertain at my own choosing, not when it suits you.

Just because I have labeled myself entp here means I must act like a clown? Here you have it guys, anti-individual dogma first class.

I'm aware of the argument MBTI is not supposed to be used stereotypically, however, nonetheless, it does promote this mindset, just like money promotes greed, or Bibles promote fundamentalism.

Edit: and this poster above is supposed to be less of a troll than me? Wtf, I guess it is because he doesn't challenge you.


----------



## phoenixpinion (Dec 27, 2012)

So far, I have not received valid counter-arguments besides ridicule. You think you win an argument because you label me troll or pseudointellectual, aka an intellectual who doesn't think like the establishment? I find that actually a compliment, since the establishment sucks, it just sucks.

And yes, I am incapable of grasping the whole of modern MBTI-theory like you guys, because I am incapable of grasping BS. I am incapable of understanding why Jesus died on the cross 2000 years ago to relief us of our sins for instance, which seems to be an easy question for a Christian however. Yet does that make me stupid? Well, I personally do not resonate with the idea that your capacity to understand dogma is a virtue. 

The ability to understand something has nothing to do with the ability to question something. I would even go so far as say understanding and questioning are direct opposites. You guys have all done your MBTI homework (daddy must be proud), but have you tried looking at the world without the MBTI-lense since then? Have you tried forming your own theory, from scratch? I doubt it, your right hemispheres are all dead. The creative part of you is dead (it's been shown that mainstream education has already destroyed your creativity by the age of 6), hence you parrot gimme evidence/proof for any new line of thought that breaches the dam of the establishment. I should make you aware of the fact that MBTI-theory is an establishment, if you haven't figured this out yet.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

MBTI is about preference of cognitive functions, not percentages of dichotomies. You should learn about the theory more.


----------



## phoenixpinion (Dec 27, 2012)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> MBTI is about preference of cognitive functions, not percentages of dichotomies. You should learn about the theory more.


Semantics. So it is so because the theory says so? What dogma is this? What if I don't believe in the preferences model either? Haven't you realised this is my whole point? Preferences implies that you can choose between mayonaise and ketchup. I'm saying there is no mayonaise nor ketchup, so there is nothing to prefer. You ask me to provide you with evidence and proof that the preference model is faulty, on which I say: WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT THE PREFERENCE MODEL IS CORRECT IN THE FIRST PLACE? MBTI was not created by scientists, yet you need science to disprove it? You can't disprove something which does not exist materially, since how do you disprove that Jesus died on the cross to relief us of our sins? 
You just will have to learn to use your brain without external input (called thinking for yourself), just like you did in elementary school when you solved the 1+1=2 equation which is universally correct without even the hint of proof.

Edit: But I guess you guys are right. This dialogue will lead nowhere because it is similar to the theist/atheist debate: 
Christian - "Read a Bible for fucking sake and you'll understand" 
Atheist - "I don't care about your fucking Bible which has nothing to do with reality and which gave rise to religious fundamentalism."

It's worthy to note that you guys are the Christians here.


----------



## phoenixpinion (Dec 27, 2012)

The reliance on proof to change your way of thinking is complete and utter intellectual laziness, which now gave rise to the materialist paradigm of empirical science, which is by the way, in every sense of the word, completely out-of-touch with reality.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

Solfonny said:


> Lol dude ur an ENTP ur supposed to be funny. tell a funny joke


He is the joke


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

phoenixpinion said:


> Semantics. So it is so because the theory says so? What dogma is this? What if I don't believe in the preferences model either? Haven't you realised this is my whole point? Preferences implies that you can choose between mayonaise and ketchup. I'm saying there is no mayonaise nor ketchup, so there is nothing to prefer. You ask me to provide you with evidence and proof that the preference model is faulty, on which I say: WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT THE PREFERENCE MODEL IS CORRECT IN THE FIRST PLACE? MBTI was not created by scientists, yet you need science to disprove it? You can't disprove something which does not exist materially, since how do you disprove that Jesus died on the cross to relief us of our sins?
> You just will have to learn to use your brain without external input (called thinking for yourself), just like you did in elementary school when you solved the 1+1=2 equation which is universally correct without even the hint of proof.
> 
> Edit: But I guess you guys are right. This dialogue will lead nowhere because it is similar to the theist/atheist debate:
> ...


You're right, it's a soft science. And, it doesn't even come close to explaining everything. It's meant as a general model on how we perceive and judge information and not to be treated as a end-all, be-all. Now with that in mind, learn about the theory more, because you lack knowledge in it. There's no way you're an ENTP. Probably a Te/Fi, IMO.  

About the Christian comment, I just thought I'd insert the Agnostic dialogue: "There's no evidence on the subject at all, so therefore instead of interpreting the lack of evidence as its absolute nonexistence (atheism) or ignoring the lack of evidence all together (theism), we should assume that there is a possibility of a divine being existing and the possibility of a divine being being nonexistent."

Treat that as pointing out a logical fallacy, not an argument on the subject of religion.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Why come here if you don't believe in it? Do you attend church too and say that God or Jesus is BS?

I 'believe' in MBTI/JCF because it is a system of underlying principles that makes sense to me. I do not require scientific proof. I have my own empirical proof and that is enough for me. It is, however, very narrow-minded and asinine to assume only your stance is the correct one, especially without providing any proof or at the least, reason. It could be that there is something we see that you don't, or perhaps vice-versa.


Now can we please get back to the real original discussion of this thread?

So... are the mermaids topless, or do they all wear seashell bras? Or perhaps some kind of under the sea attire fashioned from fins and scales? :O


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Someone's angry at the world.

Good thing there's MBTI, whatever else could one draw upon for shaming/blaming and venting some frustration.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> Now can we please get back to the real original discussion of this thread?
> 
> So... are the mermaids topless, or do they all wear seashell bras? Or perhaps some kind of under the sea attire fashioned from fins and scales? :O


I always imagined half of a coconut shell.


----------



## phoenixpinion (Dec 27, 2012)

Acerbusvenator said:


> He is the joke


Voila, ridicule. Incredibly low, especially for a self-proclaimed intj.


----------



## 37119 (Apr 11, 2012)

phoenixpinion said:


> I'm not an immature entp that people come to for entertainment. I entertain at my own choosing, not when it suits you.
> 
> Just because I have labeled myself entp here means I must act like a clown? Here you have it guys, anti-individual dogma first class.
> 
> ...


i dont get it lol


----------



## phoenixpinion (Dec 27, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> Why come here if you don't believe in it? Do you attend church too and say that God or Jesus is BS?


No, but I should. The mere thought of sitting there like a zombie listening to torture idol worshipping pedo's telling everyone what is good and what is bad and how to live has become too much for me to bear. My reality and the Church's therefore do no longer overlap.



> So... are the mermaids topless, or do they all wear seashell bras? Or perhaps some kind of under the sea attire fashioned from fins and scales? :O


Mermaids are not shameful of their bodies so they're usually topless unless revealing themselves to the human species, in which case they resort to seashells because public frontal nudity is shocking to the humans. Some courageous mermaids who did not hide their bodies were therefore captures along with the witches, accompanied by human screeches painful to the ear which included the following words: "sinner!" "demon!" "succubus! "whore!"


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

phoenixpinion said:


> especially for *a self-proclaimed intj*.


haha, so you actually *DO* believe in MBTI! :laughing: (Considering that you didn't say "so called INTJ" or something to show that you don't believe in it)
Its funny how the subconscious can make us be more honest than we want to!


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

@phoenixpinion

It must be nice to be in a position where you can ignore legitimate responses and arguments.


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

You're the most self-contained shitstorm of LOLworthy statements and valid points l have encountered in some time.

You had me for about 2 seconds with one point you made but then followed by saying :

"*The ability to understand something has nothing to do with the ability to question something."*









Thanks for the lulz.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

Sun Lips said:


> I just read through all 12 pages of this thread (for whatever reason) and my response is:
> 
> What?




















At least insert the appropriate memes.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

NighTi said:


> The FedEx guy must have missed you.


It would seem all of us receive a dosage from a syringe in our sleep no matter what, anyhow.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

You make a thread dedicated to saying that MBTI is laughable dogma, yet you bother to identify with a type. I don't understand.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

OberonHuxley said:


> Yes. I've experienced the power of belief in the soul in aiding me overide my brain circuitry and helping me rewire myself. More objectively, of an anima and it's biological use I'm certain...if not for the anima, or animus, or the image of a dream woman, or dream man, and other accompanying archetypes, we would not have science, as alchemy was the proto-science which birthed science in in conjunction with astrology...so Science evolved from a bunch of superstitious people believing in the soul, remember the linguistic parallel of proto-humans, of which we evolved from as homosapiens...that's enough behavioral and logical validation for me, the fact that it happened and that's the way things are...however it doesn't prove that a soul exists...it just proves we were meant to believe in it in order for science to evolve through us....science is an extension of our biology after all, and are biology is hardwired for us to believe in a soul.


Wait, are you saying that you believe in a soul because people did it thousands of years ago or because you don't think you have a choice?

I mean, I *really*, *really*, don't believe in a soul and if you sit in a room with me I'll walk off and do something smart rather than sitting and listening to people talk about a so called "soul". I am a hard-core believer in that we are our bodies and what people refer to their soul is their brain and nothing else so don't tell me that I biologically hardwired to believe in the existence of a soul because that's pure bullshit and any rational being would understand that. 
It's like saying that people are biologically hardwired to become christian. I mean duh, how about all the other religions and semi-religions or non-religions?
The world isn't limited to your way.


----------



## NighTi (Jan 1, 2013)

Acerbusvenator said:


> I mean, I *really*, *really*, don't believe in a soul and if you sit in a room with me I'll walk off and do something smart rather than sitting and listening to people talk about a so called "soul". I am a hard-core believer in that we are our bodies and what people refer to their soul is their brain and nothing else so don't tell me that I biologically hardwired to believe in the existence of a soul because that's pure bullshit


My first logic instructor was an atheist, not your run-of-the-mill God-denier, but the hard-core kind who trembled and frothed at the mouth whenever the subject happened to come up. That turned out to be quite frequent because she did it herself. Here is her favorite example of the logical fallacy of begging the question. I still know it by heart more than 20 years later because she repeated it so often:

1. If God did not exist, I would feel miserable.
2. I do not feel miserable.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Sound familiar?


----------



## OberonHuxley (Jun 2, 2013)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> No. I feel no urge to believe in a soul. Your entire premise is based off of the first scientists believing in the soul and that the human brain naturally wants to believe in a higher power, which can be explained by things other than the existence of a soul. It's very comforting to believe there is life after death, especially when there's death all around you, and everybody believed in the soul thousands of years ago. It was drilled into their brains and most people, scientist or not, don't stop to question those things that were drilled into the brain at the moment of birth.
> 
> I've always thought that there has to be something more to complex life than being a bag of complex, continuous chemical reactions too. I mean after all, wouldn't a sentient robot somehow be 'alive,' if that were the case? As comforting as that is though, it's not enough to go by, so therefore the only logical solution (it's not a subjective matter) is to take the agnostic route and accept both as possibilities.
> 
> I don't know what the fuck you mean by it rewiring your 'animus,' but it was what _you subjectively_ experienced. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if you were as high as Charlie Sheen at the time.


It's bad for the soul to argue about the existence of a soul. I still respect and love you as much as anyone, but I won't humor this argument. Just remember that if someone is put in a positive mood because they believe in a soul, this increases neuroplasticity, and the quality of their life - as proven by scientific studies done on prayer and faith, and you telling them they're wrong or that scientific articles which corroborate this position is subjective in order to demean them or hurt is actually an act of violence based on what violence is. Ironic that someone with a Martin Luther King quotation and arguing with a violent person is violent themselves.

I would also recommend that you re-read my post as I didn't say anything that you rephrased me as saying. I said objectively, science and logic demonstrate biological reasons for believing in the soul, and that people who believe in the soul achieve certain benefits...no where did I speak about an after-life...I said science evolved from a proto-science which involved soul projection...or the idea that a person is projecting their soul....these were not scientists yet...they were alchemists who invented the scientific method. The father of science is alchemy and the mother is astrology...These are historical facts....I'm speaking sociologically, logically, and anthropologically, all three govern areas of and are governed by science. Remember the scientific method is not synonymous with science, per say, as much of science is conjectural, dogmatic, and philosophical as much as religion in some cases.

Good day sir!

I recommend to you a book: Non-violent communication. It's a great start for you to start clearing some of your shadow and I'm only recommending it out of love for my fellow people...especially since it seems you mean well but are speaking out of emotion.


----------



## JoanCrawford (Sep 27, 2012)

Well then, you just don't appreciate the power of being able to see into the human mind.


----------



## OberonHuxley (Jun 2, 2013)

Acerbusvenator said:


> Wait, are you saying that you believe in a soul because people did it thousands of years ago or because you don't think you have a choice?
> 
> I mean, I *really*, *really*, don't believe in a soul and if you sit in a room with me I'll walk off and do something smart rather than sitting and listening to people talk about a so called "soul". I am a hard-core believer in that we are our bodies and what people refer to their soul is their brain and nothing else so don't tell me that I biologically hardwired to believe in the existence of a soul because that's pure bullshit and any rational being would understand that.
> It's like saying that people are biologically hardwired to become christian. I mean duh, how about all the other religions and semi-religions or non-religions?
> The world isn't limited to your way.


Then you may not be on the cutting edge of science which indicates quite the opposite...that reductionism is a fallacy, or you may be on the science of the 50's bandwagon which many people of your political disposition seem to aline themselves with....I have to question your critical reading skills because I said nothing that you paraphrased in your post...I won't humor an argument here it's bad for the soul...

:tongue:


----------



## JoanCrawford (Sep 27, 2012)

OberonHuxley said:


> I recommend to you a book: Non-violent communication.


Aww, look at you trying to come up with a snippy comment whilst not noticing the hypocrisy in it. *pats on head* XD


----------



## OberonHuxley (Jun 2, 2013)

JoanCrawford said:


> Aww, look at you trying to come up with a snippy comment whilst not noticing the hypocrisy in it. *pats on head* XD


What hypocrisy is that...the book is real...it's not a joke dude! Look it up...and it talks about how to actually speak non-violently...it's saved thousands of people from domestic abuse escalations...Wow...I am feeling like I am being attacked here for something I didn't do because I value sincerity and authenticity.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

OberonHuxley said:


> Then you may not be on the cutting edge of science which indicates quite the opposite...that reductionism is a fallacy, or you may be on the science of the 50's bandwagon which many people of your political disposition seem to aline themselves with....I have to question your critical reading skills because I said nothing that you paraphrased in your post...I won't humor an argument here it's bad for the soul...
> 
> :tongue:


Please, tell me what my political disposition is.


----------



## JoanCrawford (Sep 27, 2012)

OberonHuxley said:


> What hypocrisy is that...the book is real...it's not a joke dude! Look it up...and it talks about how to actually speak non-violently...it's saved thousands of people from domestic abuse escalations...Wow...I am feeling like I am being attacked here for something I didn't do because I value sincerity and authenticity.


It's not an attack, I just thought that suggesting a non-violent book was an act of agitation within itself. lol Idk, perhaps I am wrong. You just have to remember that I am an INTP, and we tend to make strange connections...!


----------



## OberonHuxley (Jun 2, 2013)

JoanCrawford said:


> It's not an attack, I just thought that suggesting a non-violent book was an act of agitation within itself. lol Idk, perhaps I am wrong. You just have to remember that I am an INTP, and we tend to make strange connections...!


No you're totally right! I thought the same thing when someone told me to read it but I thought I would accept it as uncertain as a judgement...hmmm I am somewhat confused myself now, to be honest! But thank you JoanCrawford for expanding my consciousness. Perhaps the douche who told me to read it was being violent too. I did have some anger swell up at the recommendation. Now I recommend it to people though because it does help shed light on the feeling function....I guess whoever wrote the book was a dominant feeler...because it talks mostly about how to state what you feel and what you value...as an INTJ or ENTJ - not sure which one, I found it somewhat valuable...but ackward because the entire time the FE author was judging thinking, and judging judging.


----------



## OberonHuxley (Jun 2, 2013)

Acerbusvenator said:


> Please, tell me what my political disposition is.


I'd rather not speak for you. The best way to lead is by example (ENTJ). However I can't resist the temptation of a mind game(INTJ)...

I have a split personality.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

OberonHuxley said:


> I'd rather not speak for you.


Ah, but you did


> which many people of your political disposition seem to aline themselves with


You made an assumption of my political ideology. I am just interested in how accurate your guess is.

EDIT: My earlier post was also a question, specifically wondering about what you meant concerning this:


> however it doesn't prove that a soul exists...it just *proves we were meant to believe in it* in order for science to evolve through us....science is an extension of our biology after all, and *are biology is hardwired for us to believe in a soul*.


I assume that "are" is supposed to be "our".


----------



## OberonHuxley (Jun 2, 2013)

Acerbusvenator said:


> Ah, but you did
> 
> You made an assumption of my political ideology. I am just interested in how accurate your guess is.


OOOH! That's a nasty....


misspelling. I meant align - think.

It was a metaphor alluding to a camp of thought that likes being argumentative with people who believe in souls.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

OberonHuxley said:


> OOOH! That's a nasty....
> 
> 
> misspelling. I meant align - think.
> ...


Oh sorry then, didn't realize you were talking about a school of thought (as they more formally are referred as), your wording didn't point towards it.


> which many people of your *political disposition* seem to align themselves with


Unless ofc. you think politics have something to do with this topic.

I am writing this at 5:20 am after being awake for around 18 hours and you still seem to make more errors than me, that's an impressive skill you have right there.
You don't even see the difference between me asking a pushy question and trying to argue with you.


----------



## OberonHuxley (Jun 2, 2013)

Acerbusvenator said:


> Oh sorry then, didn't realize you were talking about a school of thought (as they more formally are referred as), your wording didn't point towards it.
> 
> Unless ofc. you think politics have something to do with this topic.
> 
> ...


Good point. I have trouble putting what is happening into words...I need a good solid spanking. I agree with you.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

OberonHuxley said:


> It's bad for the soul to argue about the existence of a soul. I still respect and love you as much as anyone, but I won't humor this argument. Just remember that if someone is put in a positive mood because they believe in a soul, this increases neuroplasticity, and the quality of their life - as proven by scientific studies done on prayer and faith, and you telling them they're wrong or that scientific articles which corroborate this position is subjective in order to demean them or hurt is actually an act of violence based on what violence is. Ironic that someone with a Martin Luther King quotation and arguing with a violent person is violent themselves.
> 
> I would also recommend that you re-read my post as I didn't say anything that you rephrased me as saying. I said objectively, science and logic demonstrate biological reasons for believing in the soul, and that people who believe in the soul achieve certain benefits...no where did I speak about an after-life...I said science evolved from a proto-science which involved soul projection...or the idea that a person is projecting their soul....these were not scientists yet...they were alchemists who invented the scientific method. The father of science is alchemy and the mother is astrology...These are historical facts....I'm speaking sociologically, logically, and anthropologically, all three govern areas of and are governed by science. Remember the scientific method is not synonymous with science, per say, as much of science is conjectural, dogmatic, and philosophical as much as religion in some cases.
> 
> ...


Most people and religions throughout history who believed in a soul also believed in the afterlife. I was commenting on your claim that people are naturally wired to believe in a soul. 

Other than that your argument is:

- Nuh-uh
- "scientific" stuff to make my belief sound legitimate
- Alchemists invented the scientific method, therefore alchemy and the soul is scientifically proven
- Science itself is inherently dogmatic somehow even though it relies on objective facts
- I'm leaving the debate for no apparent reason
- passive aggressive ad hominem 
- You're speaking out of emotion even though your beliefs are based off of logic...
- Nope, not gonna address any of your other points
- I love you

Since you're not going to further argue with me as demonstrated by your "Good day sir," just thought I'd point that out. 

Thank you for the book recomendation; in return i strongly recomend this to you: Logically Fallacious: Bo Bennett: 9781456607524: Amazon.com: Books


----------



## 45130 (Aug 26, 2012)

dont talk about things in such a judgmental way ifyou know nothing about them. and you clearly sound like you know nothing about mbti.this is fuckin dumb.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

OberonHuxley said:


> I'd rather not speak for you. The best way to lead is by example (ENTJ). However I can't resist the temptation of a mind game(INTJ)...
> 
> I have a split personality.


*cringes*

You don't have a very good understanding of MBTI... the core and abstract concepts of Te and Ni have nothing to do with either of those things... MBTI shows how we think, not our behavior.


* *




And I *highly *doubt you have Ti or Te in your dominant or auxiliary.


----------



## Saira (Feb 2, 2012)

phoenixpinion said:


> I don't respond to the call of The Machine, aka logic.


Well, you certainly sound like you don't, but here you say:



phoenixpinion said:


> You people are pathetic, in the way how you cling ever greater to the notion that something as illogical as human beings should be dealt with using the tool of logic, and that I should therefore respond to your logical arguments that strengthen the case of MBTI. Yet if I don't, *I'm being illogical and my point is thus invalid.*


Now _that's_ logic, kids!


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

I think it's a safe bet that phoenixpinion and Alter2Ego are the same people and out on a vendetta to troll the good people of PerC.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

If a mermaid and human were to have kids, would the children have fishscales only up to their knees (being only 1/4 fish and 3/4 human)?


----------



## thegirlcandance (Jul 29, 2009)

You basically just described the reasons why I used to enjoy it, but now after learning so many other things about psychology I just dip into it once in a great while.

Jung had many brilliant theories. The sad thing, however, is that other people created this personality typing system and people use it has a way to fuel their ego's rather than to develop and grow. There are so many people heavily into Jung's typology and MBTI yet have NO IDEA what Jung's theory of individuation entails. We completely overlook the concept of the anima/animus, archetypes, the shadow, individual unconscious, collective unconscious, etc. which are so much richer and can lead to further growth and can probably help more of the problems that people talk about on here more so then a "personality preference".

I still remember a professor making the comment to me a few weeks ago that with the MBTI or any personality preference anybody CAN change their type if they are so self-aware that they choose to.

I'm just now gradually trying to step back from the theory and look at how it fits in in the big picture. The concepts of intuition, sensation, thinking, and feeling are great concepts and I feel like that could possibly be used in another way than by applying it to person (which only keeps us farther from Jung's individuation) and rather as a tool to use to reach individuation. But, that's just a thought at the moment.


----------



## OberonHuxley (Jun 2, 2013)

thegirlcandance said:


> You basically just described the reasons why I used to enjoy it, but now after learning so many other things about psychology I just dip into it once in a great while.
> 
> Jung had many brilliant theories. The sad thing, however, is that other people created this personality typing system and people use it has a way to fuel their ego's rather than to develop and grow. There are so many people heavily into Jung's typology and MBTI yet have NO IDEA what Jung's theory of individuation entails. We completely overlook the concept of the anima/animus, archetypes, the shadow, individual unconscious, collective unconscious, etc. which are so much richer and can lead to further growth and can probably help more of the problems that people talk about on here more so then a "personality preference".
> 
> ...


I know what you mean. People are making statements like, "you don't know what this means, or you don't know what that means," not even realizing that the functions were derived from archetypal structures as evidences throug dream analysis and active imagination for the purposes of individuation.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> If a mermaid and human were to have kids, would the children have fishscales only up to their knees (being only 1/4 fish and 3/4 human)?


Shall we bust out the Punnet Square?


----------



## thegirlcandance (Jul 29, 2009)

OberonHuxley said:


> I know what you mean. People are making statements like, "you don't know what this means, or you don't know what that means," not even realizing that the functions were derived from archetypal structures as evidences throug dream analysis and active imagination for the purposes of individuation.


Do you have any sources or references on how they functions correlate to different archetypal structures? 
I've looked into possibly getting Jung's book Personality Types, but it's a bit expensive and like 600 pages so I want to be sure I'm getting what I'm actually looking for before I go ahead and make a purchase like that.

I studied, learned, and taught about the MBTI cognitive functions a few years ago. Now after learning about Jung's model of the psyche I'm feeling more drawn to get a better idea of what Jung's initial thoughts were on his typology rather than through this relatively closed framework that others have created from his idea.


----------



## thegirlcandance (Jul 29, 2009)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> *cringes*
> 
> You don't have a very good understanding of MBTI... the core and abstract concepts of Te and Ni have nothing to do with either of those things... MBTI shows how we think, not our behavior.
> 
> ...



A person's behavior is the result of how he or she thinks (hence the soul purpose of personality and psychology in general). Actually it's not even "thinks" (that's not what the typology addresses) but rather how they process information cognitively.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

thegirlcandance said:


> A person's behavior is the result of how he or she thinks (hence the soul purpose of personality and psychology in general). Actually it's not even "thinks" (that's not what the typology addresses) but rather how they process information cognitively.


Yep, same thing. 

MBTI addresses thinking only; not behavior, even if one is the cause of the other. Having the cognitive function lay-out of TiNeSiFe does not mean you like science fiction. There are many possibilities for the behavior, even if some general aspects are more likely.


----------



## thegirlcandance (Jul 29, 2009)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Yep, same thing.
> 
> MBTI addresses thinking only; not behavior, even if one is the cause of the other. Having the cognitive function lay-out of TiNeSiFe does not mean you like science fiction. There are many possibilities for the behavior, even if some general aspects are more likely.


Science fiction is an interest, not a behavior. A behavior is how you act at a party, which how you potentially act can be explained by your personality preferences.

And thinking is one of several cognitive processes, so thinking and cognition is not the same thing.

To make that even more clear, I'll give the definition direct from the dictionary:

*cognitive process* - (psychology) the performance of some composite cognitive activity; an operation that affects mental contents; "the process of thinking"; "the cognitive operation of remembering"


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

thegirlcandance said:


> Science fiction is an interest, not a behavior. A behavior is how you act at a party, which how you potentially act can be explained by your personality preferences.
> 
> And thinking is one of several cognitive processes, so thinking and cognition is not the same thing.
> 
> ...


Watching sci-fi movies and reading sci-fi books is a behavior

"Thinking" is not one of our cognitive processes. "thinking" is actually logic, in terms of MBTI.

Yes, the process of thinking. Thinking. You know what message I was trying to convey. I'm not sure what nit-picking of terms accomplishes.


----------



## thegirlcandance (Jul 29, 2009)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Watching sci-fi movies and reading sci-fi books is a behavior
> 
> "Thinking" is not one of our cognitive processes. "thinking" is actually logic, in terms of MBTI.
> 
> Yes, the process of thinking. Thinking. You know what message I was trying to convey. I'm not sure what nit-picking of terms accomplishes.


I'm not nit-picking but rather explaining psychological concepts that you clearly don't understand.

From dictionary: 

be·hav·ior/biˈhāvyər/


Noun



The way in which one acts or conducts oneself, esp. toward others: "his insulting behavior towards me".
The way in which an animal or person acts in response to a particular situation or stimulus: "the feeding behavior of predators".






It's the way you *act*, not an interest.

And yes, thinking is a cognitive process. It is "the process of thinking", just as the "process of feeling", or the process of intuition or sensation". That's the very basic of what Jungian typology and MBTI is.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

thegirlcandance said:


> I'm not nit-picking but rather explaining psychological concepts that you clearly don't understand.
> 
> From dictionary:
> 
> ...


Again, doing things that express interest in said subject is a behavior.

Okay, that's exactly what I was trying to say. So yes, you are nit-picking terms. :/ Thinking is a cognitive process, but entirely different than the Jungian concept.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@phoenixpinion

It took you five or six months to realize the MBTI was laughable dogma? I knew it was laughable dogma shortly after I joined the site -- truthfully, I just stayed on because I liked some of the members.


----------



## thegirlcandance (Jul 29, 2009)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Again, doing things that express interest in said subject is a behavior.
> 
> Okay, that's exactly what I was trying to say. So yes, you are nit-picking terms. :/ Thinking is a cognitive process, but entirely different than the Jungian concept.


Carl Jung developed typology. It was through him that the MBTI was created. I'm sorry if I'm offending you in anyway, but at least if you are going to criticize someone else and make claims than at least have valid sources. There's a lot your missing.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

thegirlcandance said:


> Carl Jung developed typology. It was through him that the MBTI was created. I'm sorry if I'm offending you in anyway, but at least if you are going to criticize someone else and make claims than at least have valid sources. There's a lot your missing.


No, I know that and everything else you've been telling me.


----------



## blargh (May 30, 2013)

Well, you could say this MBTI are very similar like the Horoscope. You know it doesn't make any sense, yet some people likely to come back and read them because they are flattered by the description of it, or the sheer of manipulation/encouragement to reach our inner potential. Well, you know what i mean, all the description of these personality types/horoscope usually are motivation from some. From nothing to everything.

It's weird that we are always been told to think outside the box yet we love the ideas of being in the same box with other people. 
oh well.. that's my 2cent


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

blargh said:


> Well, you could say this MBTI are very similar like the Horoscope. You know it doesn't make any sense, yet some people likely to come back and read them because they are flattered by the description of it, or the sheer of manipulation/encouragement to reach our inner potential. Well, you know what i mean, all the description of these personality types/horoscope usually are motivation from some. From nothing to everything.
> 
> It's weird that we are always been told to think outside the box yet we love the ideas of being in the same box with other people.
> oh well.. that's my 2cent


No, you couldn't say that. The cognitive functions by Jung are based on scientific research. It's based on the individual person and not on positions of some stars and planets as seen from the earth.

But you´re right about people finding comfort in belonging to a group. This is human nature and this need to fit in also happens when people read about the MBTI.

The MBTI is just a way to order the cognitive functions that Jung developed. If you want to understand it, you'll have to first understand the cognitive functions. It's no use to understand a way of ordering items if you don't understand the items. Specifically position of each item is important because they do different things depending on position.

Just looking at the descriptions is what most people do and probably what you did too. With this knowledge only it is easy to reach the conclusion that it's just like horoscopes.


----------



## blargh (May 30, 2013)

Peter said:


> No, you couldn't say that. The cognitive functions by Jung are based on scientific research. It's based on the individual person and not on positions of some stars and planets as seen from the earth.
> 
> But you´re right about people finding comfort in belonging to a group. This is human nature and this need to fit in also happens when people read about the MBTI.
> 
> ...



you misinterpret me here. I'm not saying MBTI is the same as the horoscope. I'm saying that they are similar in a sense of trend, on why it is so popular amongst people. Beside just because something is "scientifically research" doesn't mean it's 100% accurate, isn't it?


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

blargh said:


> you misinterpret me here. I'm not saying MBTI is the same as the horoscope. I'm saying that they are similar in a sense of trend, on why it is so popular amongst people. Beside just because something is "scientifically research" doesn't mean it's 100% accurate, isn't it?





> Well, you could say this *MBTI are very similar like the Horoscope*. You know *it doesn't make any sense, yet some people likely to come back and read them because they are flattered by the description of it*, or *the sheer of manipulation/encouragement to reach our inner potential*. Well, you know what i mean, *all the description of these personality types/horoscope usually are motivation from some*. From nothing to everything.
> 
> It's weird that we are always been told to think outside the box yet we love the ideas of being in the same box with other people.
> oh well.. that's my 2cent


It seems like @Peter got what you wrote better than you did.
Also, it is clear that you base all your understanding of MBTI on type profiles and other things that give you a superficial understanding of MBTI which is beyond sad because that's like saying that you know psychology because you read a tabloid about it or something.

You can't compare them because they have nothing in common. Horoscopes are based on the positioning of stars and planets on the time of your birth etc. MBTI is based on preferred way to process information.
You can observe a person and tell what they MBTI type is, but try to figure out a person's horoscope from observing them.
Horoscopes aka. Astrology is a superficial belief connected to astronomy.
MBTI is connected to research within psychology and it also gains more and more ground in the world of science as we know more and more.

I suggest getting a deeper understanding in the subject before making a comparison between MBTI and horoscopes.
Psychological Types - Wikisocion
Really Me
The Myers & Briggs Foundation

Also, MBTI isn't about boxes, but rather sides.
As a Te user, I *prefer* to rely on external and objective logic which often means that I will discuss with other people to reach an objective conclusion. Ti users however *prefer *to rely on their own internal set of logic over that of others and thus will seldom see the need or desire to discuss it with others as they find that their logic is the correct.
In a way, you could say that Te users distrust their own sense of logic, whereas Ti users distrust other's sense of logic.

See how obvious sides you have there? Well, that is one of the dichotomies within MBTI divided into its function attitudes.


----------



## haephestia (May 13, 2013)

The other major difference between the two is causation: horoscopes are believed because people think that the arrangement of celestial bodies _causes_ one to have specific traits, behaviours and 'destinies' attached to them. MBTI is simply a means of classifying and explaining existing behaviours, including cognitive habits and modes, in a way that can be used universally. 

Horoscopes are specifically written to be believed by everyone. There have been studies showing that if you give an assortment of 'signs' the exact same horoscope description, they will all believe it is about them. The same would be impossible with an MBTI; while mistyping exists, certainly, it is generally caused by one trying to classify only their behaviours and not the root causes of those reactions to stimuli, the cognitive functions. Ultimately they may overlap, but I would challenge anyone to find a person who thinks that they are or could simultaneously be each and every type when reading their descriptions.


----------



## Finaille (Aug 8, 2010)

The only thing that comes to mind is that you are on a forum where most of its users do believe in the validity of the MBTI and are trying to work around your statements. We understand that it is not 100% correct. What theory is?

Many intelligent individuals on this forum are able to see the validity of the various functions to help understand how we cognitively process compared to how another individual cognitively processes. That doesn't mean we do not completely agree with how the model is set, function layout between types, and even pure definitions for the functions themselves. Yes, bias exists. Sometimes in the form of stupidity, sometimes in the form of sarcasm. 

But here is my point.

1- Waltzing in here with an argument based on the other side is not going to change many of our minds. This is a board that favors MBTI and Jungian theory. What are you trying to prove? 

2- You claim that you are ENTP, yet you claim that MBTI is 'laughable dogma.' Are we supposed to take you seriously?

3- If we are supposed to take you seriously, that must mean you agree with Jung or MBTI to some degree or else you wouldn't have chosen a type. If you claim your primary preference to be extraverted intuition, then are you just playing devil's advocate to promote the other side of the debate? 

4- You don't have to like a theory, that's respectable. We are free to take what is there and free to leave it alone if we must. But you realize that if you are going to argue something in a place that heavily supports the theory, that you are going to get some flack, right? What you are doing is being the lone Democrat going to the Republican party to explain why their party is completely wrong and why they should support the opposite of what they do. Same effect. You are going to get Republicans who don't take you seriously, and you are going to get Republicans who are capable of seeing that there are flaws on their side, HOWEVER, they still ultimately choose through research and study instead of hanging in limbo.

5- If MBTI is valid and useful to individuals to help with understanding the self and others, why bother shooting it down? Yes, it shouldn't be used as a one fits all model. I think you are very intelligent to realize that promoting it in businesses where many people will narrow down type and function to bias and specific roles is NOT helpful. It is a tool that must be used by somebody who cares to understand it earnestly and is willing to see that in the end all boils down to preferences. It should not be forced or assumed on any individual. But if it helps some, then why shoot it down? 

And then to make it all hilarious to boot, just because the internet says mermaids are real... Yikes. The internet says Obama is the Anti-Christ. Oh lawdy almighty, I believe! -_-

*I think you are just here to see how many people can shit their pants over a thread. *


----------



## phoenixpinion (Dec 27, 2012)

RobynC said:


> @_phoenixpinion_
> 
> It took you five or six months to realize the MBTI was laughable dogma? I knew it was laughable dogma shortly after I joined the site -- truthfully, I just stayed on because I liked some of the members.


It took me a while yes, yet until it truly hit me I felt like this sudden need to spread the word. I figured, why not just walk straight into the grand temple of personalitycafe for maximum effect hey?

People just get suckered into it more and more and that shit has to stop.


I really don't like MBTI types, I like individuals. 

Yet I'd imagine MBTI being useful for robots trying to understand humans, but surely we humans are gifted with em-/sympathy, a much better way of trying to understand eachother instead of ripping open eachother's heads.


Example: Instead of trying to understand the underlying reason why person A thinks or feels this way, MBTI (and other) typology shortcuts this circuit and rationalizes it under the guise of "Ah, he feels this way because he is an F" or "He is cold because he is a T". This is extremely superficial and requires no empathy. And no, *F =/= empathy*.

Maybe this preference for such typology systems goes hand-in-hand with the fact that modern society seems to be delving deeper and deeper into the abyss of apathy, thereby loosing the natural ability of empathy (= actually a slight form of telepathy). The denial of non-materialistic consciousness (call it soul if you will, doesn't really matter how you call it though) also seems to go hand-in-hand with this together with the identification with the body. (Reasoning: If consciousness is a result of the brain, and our brains/bodies are obviously separated from eachother, it means that your reality does not impact mine and vice-versa, therefore empathy serves no purpose.)



I literally see empathy as the only sign of civilization, and the replacement of empathy with apathy is therefore a sign of a self-destructing civilization. Capitalism has surely lend a hand in this, and I hope these psychopathic CEO's at the top are still capable of a good night sleep knowing that they helped a fair share in destroying humanity's potential.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

phoenixpinion said:


> I literally see empathy as the only sign of civilization, and the replacement of empathy with apathy is therefore a sign of a self-destructing civilization.


Is that what happened to the mermaids in Atlantis?


----------



## phoenixpinion (Dec 27, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> Is that what happened to the mermaids in Atlantis?


See, you prove my point exactly. Like I said, if you have nothing useful to say except ridicule, I will keep quoting myself:

EAT SHIT AND DIE

I have no interest in wasting my time with such nonsense.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

phoenixpinion said:


> See, you prove my point exactly. Like I said, if you have nothing useful to say except ridicule, I will keep quoting myself:
> 
> EAT SHIT AND DIE


Arguing with idiots (you) is a bit like playing chess with a pigeon. There is no point in it, because they will simply shit on the board and fly back to their flock to claim victory. 

(paraphrased from some guy)


----------



## phoenixpinion (Dec 27, 2012)

thegirlcandance said:


> Carl Jung developed typology. It was through him that the MBTI was created. I'm sorry if I'm offending you in anyway, but at least if you are going to criticize someone else and make claims than at least have valid sources. There's a lot your missing.


This is as valid as saying Pythagoras invented the atomic bomb, because he laid the foundation for mathematics, which then laid the foundation for physics, which then laid the foundation for the atomic bomb.

Jung and typology have absolutely nothing in common.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

phoenixpinion said:


> See, you prove my point exactly. Like I said, if you have nothing useful to say except ridicule, I will keep quoting myself:
> 
> EAT SHIT AND DIE
> 
> I have no interest in wasting my time with such nonsense.


You could just say "I don't know" instead of deflecting and being nasty. Where's your empathy?


----------



## phoenixpinion (Dec 27, 2012)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Arguing with idiots (you) is a bit like playing chess with a pigeon. There is no point in it, because they will simply shit on the board and fly back to their flock to claim victory.
> 
> (paraphrased from some guy)


I would so like to start a fight with you, unfortunately, this is impossible over the internet, which I guess is the reason why logical battles are the battles of choice here.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

phoenixpinion said:


> I would so like to start a fight with you, unfortunately, this is impossible over the internet, which I guess is the reason why logical battles are the battles of choice here.


Oh, c'mon. We can have a virtual fist fight. Don't you have a Mortal Combat game or something?


----------



## phoenixpinion (Dec 27, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> You could just say "I don't know" instead of deflecting and being nasty. Where's your empathy?


Lesson nr. 1: Empathy is a two-way street. There is no such thing as empathizing with someone who shits in your face. The best way to handle that is shit right back. Empathy does not mean being a pussy so the bully can walk over you more easily.


----------



## thegirlcandance (Jul 29, 2009)

phoenixpinion said:


> This is as valid as saying Pythagoras invented the atomic bomb, because he laid the foundation for mathematics, which then laid the foundation for physics, which then laid the foundation for the atomic bomb.
> 
> Jung and typology have absolutely nothing in common.


I'm sorry if you see it that way, but in my perception pythagoras would be in common with the atomic bomb. Just as Albert Einstein is with his equation of E=MC2. One person's work creates the principles which then another branches off from. It's all interconnected, just as everything in the world. One idea branches off to the other and therefore flows to the next.

Typology and the work of MBTI, Keirsey, and Socionics wouldn't exist if it wasn't for Jung's theories. To believe that they don't and haven't had any influence to each other is a very close-minded way of perception and very limiting (and ultimately very ego-driven rather than intuitive). It really doesn't provide much room for any further learning and growth, as that is what was needed for people like Isabella Briggs and David Keirsey to do in order to create these systems. It's all theory, not at all concrete, and very open to various different investigation.


I hope that you are willing to be open to that way of seeing and being. Though I would like to investigate MBTI and typology and psychology in general (as they are all interconnected) among other things, I do feel that my time of sharing my thoughts on this particular thread is done. I feel there's a lot of dense negative energy lurking around on this particular thread for some reason and, rather than a place that's open for discussion and to learn and discuss, I feel it's a bit of an excuse to find an outlet for anger, which really isn't anything that I feel I deserve to subject myself to nor do I find proactive. Thanks for your time.


----------



## phoenixpinion (Dec 27, 2012)

Finaille said:


> 1- Waltzing in here with an argument based on the other side is not going to change many of our minds. This is a board that favors MBTI and Jungian theory. What are you trying to prove?


I guess I'm a fool for walking right into lion's den.



> 2- You claim that you are ENTP, yet you claim that MBTI is 'laughable dogma.' Are we supposed to take you seriously?


Just because the letters ENTP hangs under my internet forum avatar, does not mean I identify with it. Been spending too much time on facebook? 



> 3- If we are supposed to take you seriously, that must mean you agree with Jung or MBTI to some degree or else you wouldn't have chosen a type. If you claim your primary preference to be extraverted intuition, then are you just playing devil's advocate to promote the other side of the debate?


Yes, I agree with Jung, not with MBTI. As I have said countless of times already. And no, I don't claim my primary preference to be extraverted intuition, since the whole point of this thread is that I don't believe in the preference model.



> 4- You don't have to like a theory, that's respectable. We are free to take what is there and free to leave it alone if we must. But you realize that if you are going to argue something in a place that heavily supports the theory, that you are going to get some flack, right? What you are doing is being the lone Democrat going to the Republican party to explain why their party is completely wrong and why they should support the opposite of what they do. Same effect. You are going to get Republicans who don't take you seriously, and you are going to get Republicans who are capable of seeing that there are flaws on their side, HOWEVER, they still ultimately choose through research and study instead of hanging in limbo.


I don't like politics, never have, never will. Computer games and outdoor sports is enough gaming for me. 



> 5- If MBTI is valid and useful to individuals to help with understanding the self and others, why bother shooting it down? Yes, it shouldn't be used as a one fits all model. I think you are very intelligent to realize that promoting it in businesses where many people will narrow down type and function to bias and specific roles is NOT helpful. It is a tool that must be used by somebody who cares to understand it earnestly and is willing to see that in the end all boils down to preferences. It should not be forced or assumed on any individual. But if it helps some, then why shoot it down?


I've tried many things. Horoscopes, soul ages and archetypes, and now MBTI. While it may be unfair to put MBTI on the same level of those other two (yet it is definately the most arrogant since it has "some" scientific backup), it still plays the same game of dividing people up in groups and types. Like the world has been divided up in nations, nations in states, humanity in races... You know what happens when too much division arises? *W A R* . 

MBTI is like when you were little and the boys and the girls lived in separate worlds except on those rare occasions. Imho, it's time we finally grew up and started intermingling, as weird as that sounds. Stop living in that comfort box. You want to know how girls think (does not apply to you if you're female, which I'm pretty sure you are)? Talk to them, instead of developping all sorts of weird theories on how their minds may or may not work. And then, when you finally developped a perfect theory with your m8s on how their minds work, reality shits you right in the face, and you start questioning the validity of these magnificent theories. This is actually the reality of MBTI. Great theories, but ultimately heavily removed from everyday reality until you realise you were better off not delving into them in the first place. So I guess I am playing the devil's advocate, since nobody else does, atleast not in the extent as they should.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

phoenixpinion said:


> Lesson nr. 1: Empathy is a two-way street. There is no such thing as empathizing with someone who shits in your face. The best way to handle that is shit right back. Empathy does not mean being a pussy so the bully can walk over you more easily.


You brought up mermaids. I think I've been pretty consistent in sticking with that topic. You are the one being a bully, sir.


----------



## phoenixpinion (Dec 27, 2012)

thegirlcandance said:


> I'm sorry if you see it that way, but in my perception pythagoras would be in common with the atomic bomb. Just as Albert Einstein is with his equation of E=MC2. One person's work creates the principles which then another branches off from. It's all interconnected, just as everything in the world. One idea branches off to the other and therefore flows to the next.
> 
> Typology and the work of MBTI, Keirsey, and Socionics wouldn't exist if it wasn't for Jung's theories. To believe that they don't and haven't had any influence to each other is a very close-minded way of perception and very limiting (and ultimately very ego-driven rather than intuitive). It really doesn't provide much room for any further learning and growth, as that is what was needed for people like Isabella Briggs and David Keirsey to do in order to create these systems. It's all theory, not at all concrete, and very open to various different investigation.
> 
> ...


Ok then, let's just say that MBTI is indeed a child of Jung, just like atomic bomb scientists are children of Pythagoras. But what if they are bad children? You think every child is like their parents?


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

hijack time:
SERIOUS QUESTION FOR ANYONE BUT OP.

If Fe is not empathy then what is it? Or rather, is empathy one of Fe's values? (alongside harmony etc)
And does the F in MBTI mean something different to Fe/Fi in cognitive functions....?
If so, what?
And why, if Fi is different to Fe, why would MBTI decide they both become F? She must have had good reason to...?
I know this is an idiot question but it honestly doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

JungleDisco said:


> hijack time:
> SERIOUS QUESTION FOR ANYONE BUT OP.
> 
> If Fe is not empathy then what is it? Or rather, is empathy one of Fe's values?
> ...


I think it's associated with empathy, but not always. Sometimes Fe users believe others should conform to social values, rather than empathize with others' differences.


----------



## thegirlcandance (Jul 29, 2009)

JungleDisco said:


> hijack time:
> SERIOUS QUESTION FOR ANYONE BUT OP.
> 
> If Fe is not empathy then what is it? Or rather, is empathy one of Fe's values? (alongside harmony etc)
> ...


There's no such thing as an "idiot" question. ;-)

You're probably better off asking the specifics of that on the cognitive functions forum (yes, there is a separate one JUST for that!).

I'd also recommend reading: Understanding the 8 Jungian Cognitive Processes (8 Functions) I LOVE the descriptions on that site. Wonderful resource.


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

JungleDisco said:


> hijack time:
> SERIOUS QUESTION FOR ANYONE BUT OP.
> 
> If Fe is not empathy then what is it? Or rather, is empathy one of Fe's values? (alongside harmony etc)
> ...


l truly believe that Fe is empathy and Fi is sympathy but l understand that Fi users may disagree lol.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

OMG WTF BRO said:


> l truly believe that Fe is empathy and Fi is sympathy but l understand that Fi users may disagree lol.


DAT FI ALWAYS TRYNA BE SPECIAL AND SHIT.
Special Snowflakly Fi.:kitteh:


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

JungleDisco said:


> DAT FI ALWAYS TRYNA BE SPECIAL AND SHIT.
> Special Snowflakly Fi.:kitteh:


l think l ended up with some kind of f*cked up combination of the two or had Fi first and developed Fe. l make no claims for the accuracy of this comment lol.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

OMG WTF BRO said:


> l think l ended up with some kind of f*cked up combination of the two or had Fi first and developed Fe. l make no claims for the accuracy of this comment lol.


I have a fucked up combination of the two too!


----------



## phoenixpinion (Dec 27, 2012)

Haha, empathy is not to be found in the cognitive functions. It is really desperate watching mbti enthousiasts trying to pigeonhole it into either Fi or Fe. And then they're convinced I'm the one who's lacking in understanding..

In case you haven't noticed, all animals have feelings, yet feelings are inherintly selfish (feeling good about yourself does not automatically make another person feel good. In extreme cases even the opposite, like how the crock feels good when it eats the zebra). 

Empathy is actually about extending your energetic field or "consciousness" to someone else's, thereby tuning into them, whether this is feeling or thought, depends on the other's personality. Doing this therefore automatically lowers your own personality, for how otherwise can you identify with another's feelings if you do not set aside your own or if you're a thinker yourself? This means that one who operates on empathy must be operating on something else than his/her personality, if he/she is not trying to preserve it. Could this be the soul, or the Self as Jung calls it?

It is therefore not surprising that in a world where people are viciously worrying about their self-image or improving their personality to stand out and make a name for themselves, empathy is becoming a lost art, together with the increasing skepticism/agnosticism or even outright denial of the existence of the soul. (This is also the reason why narcissists have no empathy, they're simply too busy with their own self-image to actually care about anyone else. And yes, ENFJ/ISFP narcissists exist too!) Never has truth been so lost. The materialist scientific paradigm is truly an abomination, and it's eating you.

Soul/empathy = two sides of the same coin. Like soul is potentiated empathy (noun) and empathy is actualized soul (verb). Soul is nothing fixed and limited like the personality is, but extremely fluid (flexible) and unlimited.


----------



## Finaille (Aug 8, 2010)

phoenixpinion said:


> Just because the letters ENTP hangs under my internet forum avatar, does not mean I identify with it. Been spending too much time on facebook?


Huh? Well, I don't shroud myself in mystery just to throw people off. I'm not here to present myself as a different character or persona. Until noted otherwise, I assume the same of others. 



> Yes, I agree with Jung, not with MBTI. As I have said countless of times already. And no, I don't claim my primary preference to be extraverted intuition, since the whole point of this thread is that I don't believe in the preference model.



You are correct, and I did see many of those posts. So a hypothesis was made before I read everything else. I was partially correct, then.



> I don't like politics, never have, never will. Computer games and outdoor sports is enough gaming for me.


Trust me, I don't like politics either. Computer games are swell. The point of that was I was making an example of your approach into this thread.



> I've tried many things. Horoscopes, soul ages and archetypes, and now MBTI. While it may be unfair to put MBTI on the same level of those other two (yet it is definately the most arrogant since it has "some" scientific backup), it still plays the same game of dividing people up in groups and types. Like the world has been divided up in nations, nations in states, humanity in races... You know what happens when too much division arises? *W A R* .


While I think that this particular theory is too narrow in general, it does classify how people process the world around them. You also have to factor in behavior, family models, culture, generation, and so much more. If you were to factor every single type of personality influence, then you get completely individualized people. Jung really only looks at one particular facet.

And separation doesn't have to cause war. Acknowledging differences is normal. It's standing around saying 'I'm better than you' and putting it to action that does that. 



> MBTI is like when you were little and the boys and the girls lived in separate worlds except on those rare occasions. Imho, it's time we finally grew up and started intermingling, as weird as that sounds. Stop living in that comfort box. You want to know how girls think (does not apply to you if you're female, which I'm pretty sure you are)? Talk to them, instead of developping all sorts of weird theories on how their minds may or may not work. And then, when you finally developped a perfect theory with your m8s on how their minds work, reality shits you right in the face, and you start questioning the validity of these magnificent theories. This is actually the reality of MBTI. Great theories, but ultimately heavily removed from everyday reality until you realise you were better off not delving into them in the first place. So I guess I am playing the devil's advocate, since nobody else does, atleast not in the extent as they should.


So believing in anything that we cannot prove wholly is a 'comfort' box? You assume I do not question MBTI, which is not true. I'm not angry that you are playing devil's advocate. I think anybody who does support a theory should recognize what is incorrect. But it makes sense to me and for the most part, I can use it without causing harm. I am capable of making judgements and labeling because I can see the patterns and recognize when I need to make an adjustment. 

I'm using Jung and MBTI because it helps make sense of my own world. It doesn't have to fit every single person or purpose. I don't force other people to use it. I can use that, and many other theories, without causing separation. This is one small aspect of my life, studying personality theory in general. I play video games. I read. I enjoy music. I am active in my church. No matter what, somebody somewhere is not going to like what I do and they are going to bitch and argue in hopes that I change. 

I am respectful enough to leave others to their own devices and trust what they do with their lives is best for them. That includes their likes, dislikes, what they support, and what they abhor. 

In the end, my dear sir (or madam, since what you present as yourself is obviously not reality), I am my own person. I am capable of using reasoning and my own judgement to choose what I believe in and what I like. I am going to do what I prefer in the end and you cannot stop me. Just because MBTI affects you in that way and you believe that it causes separation does not mean it does. It just means it does for you. Other people may agree with you, but they are still going to come up with their own rationale.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

JungleDisco said:


> hijack time:
> SERIOUS QUESTION FOR ANYONE BUT OP.
> 
> If Fe is not empathy then what is it? Or rather, is empathy one of Fe's values? (alongside harmony etc)
> ...


First off, I don't consider it an idiotic question, because MBTI is constructed strangely. They both become F because that's the point at which they unite - I think that the people who built MBTI were more unitary as thinkers in this way.

Fe is not empathy (besides which I'd call it sympathy over empathy anyway). Fe is discernment of how things relate (the nature of their relation) in their own right, in an objective sense (standards that are more accessible in a common context). What things? Depends on how Sensing or Intuition joins with it.

Fi is not sympathy (or empathy). Fi is discernment of how things relate to you (and vice versa) on a personal, subjective scale.

F in MBTI is just..I look at it as the relational principle. It seems to be combined largely with a people-focus (over structural), and I'd say it's because the architects naturally looked at relation in terms of people, which seems to have included Jung himself. Values are often used to elucidate how you feel your relations to things in the world.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

Flatliner said:


> First off, I don't consider it an idiotic question, because MBTI is constructed strangely. They both become F because that's the point at which they unite - I think that the people who built MBTI were more unitary as thinkers in this way.
> 
> Fe is not empathy (besides which I'd call it sympathy over empathy anyway). Fe is discernment of how things relate in their own right, in an objective sense (standards that are more accessible in a common context). What things? Depends on how Sensing or Intuition joins with it.
> 
> ...


Interesting so to you are they sort of like values then? That gets thrown around a lot.

Also why would you call Fe more sympathetic than empathetic?


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

JungleDisco said:


> Interesting so to you are they sort of like values then? That gets thrown around a lot.
> 
> Also why would you call Fe more sympathetic than empathetic?


More 'evaluations' than values per se. It can come across as value-oriented, and I think more complex Feeling often does in some sense - you're in tune with what is valued, moreover how it is valued.

As for sympathy and empathy, I view sympathy as more an outward expression/show of relation than empathy, which seems to me to be inward and personally-oriented. This is not to say that Fe users do not feel empathy and Fi cannot feel sympathy, but that the expression to me seems correlated in the overall way I said above.


----------



## DualGnosis (Apr 6, 2013)

When you used the word dogma in this context, I imagine people going to a church with a picture of Katharine Cook Briggs and Isabel Briggs Myers at the alter.

Bro it ain't that extreme.


----------



## platorepublic (Dec 27, 2012)

Please delete my post.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

blargh said:


> you misinterpret me here. I'm not saying MBTI is the same as the horoscope. I'm saying that they are similar in a sense of trend, on why it is so popular amongst people. Beside just because something is "scientifically research" doesn't mean it's 100% accurate, isn't it?


This is psychology, not physics. Accuracy from a mathematical point of view doesn't apply here. There is not a single theory in psychology that is 100% accurate from a mathematical point of view. Mostly because psychology isn't math.


----------



## blargh (May 30, 2013)

Peter said:


> This is psychology, not physics. Accuracy from a mathematical point of view doesn't apply here. There is not a single theory in psychology that is 100% accurate from a mathematical point of view. Mostly because psychology isn't math.


funny because i never mention it's physics or math. but hey .. whatever float your boat


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

blargh said:


> funny because i never mention it's physics or math. but hey .. whatever float your boat


Look, Einstein,... you brought up the "100 % accuracy" statement. What I explained was that you can't measure a theory in psychology with percentage accuracy like it is done in physics or math.


----------



## Pete The Lich (May 16, 2011)

phoenixpinion said:


> Proof? "A mermaid is like 55% human and 45% fish, yet no one in their right mind would say it's a human. It bears qualities that humans never can, and vice versa.
> 
> I am 55% feeler and 45% thinker, yet according to MBTI I am a feeler."
> 
> ...


*cough*usethecognativefunctions*cough*
*cough*cough*MBTIisforgettingpeoplehookedonsomethingsimple*COUGH*COUGH*

I need a glass of water


----------



## Nicole Hobbs (May 31, 2012)

phoenixpinion said:


> Ofcourse you're free to do and think and play around with what you want. I'm just saying mbti, like astrology is laughable BS. I say laughable, because I can't take BS serious, yet many DO take it serious, very serious, leading to dogma.
> 
> I like identifying with the ENTP stereotype too (my zodiac is Leo, which I also like):
> 
> ...



Well, yeah, it's not like I need permission from any stranger on the internet in order to figure out my hobbies. :wink:
As long as we learn something from whatever we happen to type as, I don't see a problem with it.

But, to some of us (INFJ's in particular, though you don't believe in that malarky lol), it's kind of an enlightening tool, because we finally figure out why we feel so alienated in a society which is made up mostly of Sensors (whether you believe in it, or not). Finding your 'type' when you're one of the rarer ones (INFJ's...INTJ's... INTP's...most of the iNtuitives) was kind of a god-send to me. It gave me a place to "belong"...and to be like "huh...there's other people out there that see the world similarly to me". 

Sorry to be so late in replying. Been busy, and all of that.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

phoenixpinion said:


> Yes, I agree with Jung, not with MBTI.


That's all dandy.

If you however truly agreed with Jung (or understood him), you'd see your own infidelity and fallacy by trying to 'crusade' against MBTI, as for you should have a better understanding of MBTI than MBTI itself has; thus again instilling it with vital potency - albeit not comprehensible for most, obviously.

Outright dismissing it (although it undoubtedly is dismissable in its original form) is nothing but ignorance and short-sightedness.

:mellow:


----------

