# ObjectivePersonality (DaveSuperpowers)



## Turi

Bastard said:


> Note why I said I thought he was suss. Calling it "objective typology" just prays on those already susceptible to "logical" manipulation.
> 
> I merely noticed that DaveSuperPowers is a broken clock. Part of the reason I prefer Socionics over MBTI is the tendency towards external manifestations: information elements, intertype relations, etc. None of the systems are without their pitfalls when it comes to methodology and interpretation, though.


My theory is that ObjectivePersonality are far truer to Jung than we're being led to believe - I've noticed patterns and similarities in what they're saying from Jungs work and von Franzs lecture on _The Inferior Function_ - even their name, ObjectivePersonality makes me think of Jung speaking of Objective Psychology in Chapter I of _Psychological Types_.

Just wanted to chime in this, due to you questioning the intent of the name - I realize it's a generic name - they want to objectively track personality, right - but the patterns I'm recognizing are simply too overwhelming to be ignored, lol so I can't shake the feeling they took the name from there. lol.

I also note, the latest Youtube video is about ESxP Ghost Stories - von Franz quite literally suggests the same thing in her lecture on the Inferior Function.
I also note that the Animals, the idea of the functions being primitive, is suggested by Jung and von Franz (or maybe just von Franz? I can't remember >_<).

There's a certain adherence to Jung and von Franz occurring here, that leads _me _to believe the theory isn't _entirely _built upon their own observations alone.


----------



## Ocean Helm

Turi said:


> I was addressing this, a concern you absolutely in every way expressed:


Okay, what is he using trying to syncretize Tony Robbins' "human needs" model with? It's _functions_, and no they aren't consistent to Jung. I could try to do what people have tried to do repeatedly on here, and explain why Tony Robbins' (or wherever they came from) concepts aren't compatible with Jung's, at least not in linking "organize" to Pi functions for example, but as far as I'm concerned if you haven't gotten it by now it's a lost cause.

And since they aren't consistent with Jung's functions, nor anyone elses, they are ObjectivePersonality's own functions; hence, DaveSuperFunctions.


> Not to mention, you keep calling him DaveSuperFunctions (also, ObjectivePersonality isn't one guy) - I know where your head is at, consider addressing the Human Needs next time if you intend to critique the system.


You really don't, because I am calling the functions he invented DaveSuperFunctions, the quadras he invented DaveSuperQuadras, etc. Oh right, maybe _he_ didn't personally invent the particular things I'm talking about. But he's still the leader of the group and the one making the biggest and loudest appeal for your money.


> Also, if you'll kindly note - the MBTI is functions-based, in _Gifts Differing_, Myers even outlines some information pertaining to the following temperaments - SF, ST, NF and NT.
> Those _are _the functions.


I haven't read _Gifts Differing_, so I don't know if these are referring to the middle two letters, or Jung's functions here (it could be either). Regardless of how much functions have crept into peripheral material though, functions are notably _excluded_ from MBTI's type-sorting process.


> Introversion and Extroversion aren't functions (they're attitudes), neither are Judging or Perceiving (this indicates ones supposed preferred extroverted function) - so you'll find that within the scope of the MBTI, the methodology is based purely and exclusively, on the 'functions' - to read you suggest you prefer MBTI over a 'functions system', is somewhat amusing, I must admit.


The type sorting process (i.e. the method used to determine your type) excludes functions. MBTI, as a classification system, is _not_ a functions system, and you can stay amused while you try to reconstruct reality for your own uses, but ain't my problem. I was specifically talking about competing type-sorting/classification systems, so if there was a miscommunication, hopefully there is no longer.


----------



## LeSangDeCentAns

There is only one question that needs to be answered: Does his system work?

It would seem natural that someone in this age of computing would gather data and develop an algorithm that identifies people personalities. Jung couldn't do it because the tools didn't exist, but I bet that is what Jung would have wanted. It's safe to assume that someone eventually could. Sure, it would probably not be full-proof, but when biological facts like gender is questioned because of a few outliers...


----------



## Turi

@Ocean Helm - what exactly do you think the middle two letters are then?

Preferences?
_a greater liking for one alternative over another or others._
Alternative what? Preference for _what_? 

Processes? 
_a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end._
Process of _what_? 

lol

Also, you ain't read _Gifts Differing_?
What.


----------



## Cataclysm

Smegma said:


> There is only one question that needs to be answered: Does his system work?
> 
> It would seem natural that someone in this age of computing would gather data and develop an algorithm that identifies people personalities. Jung couldn't do it because the tools didn't exist, but I bet that is what Jung would have wanted. It's safe to assume that someone eventually could. Sure, it would probably not be full-proof, but when biological facts like gender is questioned because of a few outliers...


They are trying to make it work on a larger and larger scale. They have managed to get thousands of people as the same type and now they're trying to get more people on board and teaching them how to type people the way they do. Their goal is to get 100 people to be able to type consistently independently of each other.


----------



## Cataclysm

Ocean Helm said:


> You'd do better to try to actually read what I wrote before answering with a page long reply which addresses concerns which I never expressed.
> 
> I don't care who came up with these ideas - he is the one subjectively combining them together into the DaveSuperFunctions hodgepodge of ideas.
> 
> And no, those ideas are not consistent with Jung but you don't seem to get it when people explain it to you so it's not worth the effort. I tried before, and am done with that quest.


Have you even read the information on their website? They track people's objective characteristics in a consistent manner. That's what matters. Two people looking at the same information and determining that it is in fact the same thing. That is what they're doing and it's working.


----------



## Drecon

I honestly think they're on to some things. Their methods seem to be far better than what most people are doing. 

I agree that there's a cash grab thing too, they clearly see this market and are willing to use it to their advantage. That's nothing new and nothing bad in itself. Making it into a business also tends to help with getting this kind of thing accepted. 

I'm conflicted about a lot of things they do and I have issue with the 'self-help' angle that keeps on shining through, but their methodology is better than almost anything I've seen on MBTI. Trying to get an objective system for typing is necessary if we want to get this kind of thing accepted. For a scientific approach you need to find a method where any two individuals will independently arrive at the same conclusion. 

I'm not sure if they're there yet. I take issue with typing by watching videos, although they have clear stances on what is and isn't useful material. for example: edited material is right out as editing out the parts where you show your inferior function is quite easy.

I'm suspending my end judgment but for now, I see a lot of things that they do better than many sources I know about.


----------



## Stevester

I've ALWAYS typed people based on the IJ/EP/IP/EJ system. I'm glad someone else sees the virtues of this and is spreading it on the internet. 

Because as of now, the preferred typing method for people seems to be:_ ''Are they creative and rigid = NJ, creative and rebellious = NP, Boring = SJ or batshit crazy in all the wrong ways = SP''_.


----------



## LeSangDeCentAns

Stevester said:


> I've ALWAYS typed people based on the IJ/EP/IP/EJ system. I'm glad someone else sees the virtues of this and is spreading it on the internet.
> 
> Because as of now, the preferred typing method for people seems to be:_ ''Are they creative and rigid = NJ, creative and rebellious = NP, Boring = SJ or batshit crazy in all the wrong ways = SP''_.


People say that ISTJ are conservatives, blah blah blah. Right? What happens with a movement threatens the values of an ISTJ? For example, a communist revolution? Man... The ISTJ's would be the front line against the revolution. Nothing boring in that.


----------



## MusiCago

I'm confused.. Is this typing system based on behavior? If so, doesn't that contradict the belief that psychological processing ≠ behavior?

If I'm wrong, correct me; I'm just trying to understand what this is about.


----------



## Turi

MusiCago said:


> I'm confused.. Is this typing system based on behavior? If so, doesn't that contradict the belief that psychological processing ≠ behavior?
> 
> If I'm wrong, correct me; I'm just trying to understand what this is about.


I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the MBTI, then.

The MBTI types based on behaviour exclusively - without the aid of a certified practitioner, it types entirely by self-reported external behaviour (online), in _Gifts Differing_, Myers basically says anything _besides _behaviour is semantics as far as typing is concerned.
Not that that has anything to do with others typings based on external behaviour, I'm just saying the worlds most popular type indicator types solely on external behaviour, unashamedly.



> We have been less interested in defining the processes than in describing the consequences of each preference as far as we can observe or infer them, and in using the most accessible consequences (not the most important) to develop a means of identifying type. Since the more superficial aspects of type are often the easiest to report, many trivial reactions are useful for identification, but these are merely straws to show which way the wind blows. They are not the wind.
> 
> It would be a mistake to assume that the essence of an attitude or of a perceptive or judging process is defined by its trivial surface effects or by the test items that reflect it or by the words used to describe it. The essence of each of the four preferences is an observable reality.


Myers, Isabel Briggs; Myers, Peter B.. Gifts Differing: Understanding Personality Type (Kindle Locations 581-587). Hodder & Stoughton. Kindle Edition.​
Obviously - she notes there's more to the types than the superficial aspects, but she is definitely only relying those aspects to put people into whichever of the limited 16 boxes they best fit (superficially).


Yes, like the MBTI, OP also types based on external behaviour - but all the checks and balances re: polarities should be noted as separating it from the MBTI - not to mention, there is no self-reporting 'test' people are to undertake - it's intended to be a 'univeral' system of sorts, whereby anybody can learn it, and type people (based on 512 types, not 16) and accurately nail the same one single type, as other people, in a blind-test scenario.

The method is far more extensive and _ruthless _than what is employed by the MBTI and CPP Inc - it is not intended to slap a quick label on somebody or blow smoke up their ass and tell 'em how rare they are based on their own self-reporting, it's designed to obtain objective accuracy and be taken to the scientific community to be clinically validated.

It's not really aimed at personality-forum keyboard-warriors, in my opinion - there isn't any room for semantics or 'opinions' as such - it's built upon testing and retesting of definitions, refining methodology and always adapting to the facts and data.
There isn't really any room for 'theory' - either something works that enables people in double-blind test scenarios to type somebody the same as each other, or it doesn't because it's too open to subjectivity - so, refine, clarify, alter and try again until things work.

They do not adapt the data to fit the theory, so yes, it is based upon external behaviour but it is not intended to force that behaviour into any particular box - instead, it works _with _that external behaviour to ensure the highest accuracy across the board.

They're not okay with say, two people testing as INFP, but there being clear differences between the two - what are the difference, why are their differences and they need to make sure they can identify those differences and separate those two INFPs from each other - and separate whatever that difference is in other people, in the future - that's how the system got split way out into 512 types - they noticed there was trackable differences between the 16 types, then 32, 64, 128, 256 and finally out to 512 where they feel they're able to track everything they've come across with 90%+ accuracy in double-blind scenarios.


All this to say yes, based on external behaviour - but in a much more expansive and ruthless manner than the MBTI is.
They completely oppose subjectivity and question absolutely everything.


----------



## Stevester

Nope, it's essentially what a person naturally prefers.

IJs love organization, shun chaos
EPs love exploration, shun control
IPs love individual expression, shun conformity
EJs love leadership, shun individual needs


----------



## Turi

Stevester said:


> I've ALWAYS typed people based on the IJ/EP/IP/EJ system. I'm glad someone else sees the virtues of this and is spreading it on the internet.
> 
> Because as of now, the preferred typing method for people seems to be:_ ''Are they creative and rigid = NJ, creative and rebellious = NP, Boring = SJ or batshit crazy in all the wrong ways = SP''_.


Smart man - the methodology they've employed with regards to IJ/EP/IP/EJ 'temperaments' is aligned very closely with the Outer Images from Roger Pearmans _I'm Not Crazy, I'm Just Not You_.
The Outer Image is essentially how we're perceived or like to be perceived, within the first few moments of meeting somebody, a public 'front', essentially.

He outlines them as follows:

*EP - Extraversion and Perception* 

active and energetic 
seek novel experiences 
informal and spontaneous 
often uninhibited
like rapid tempo

This is very obviously aligned with the idea of Se/Ne - or simply, EP types, being 'gatherers' - a preference for being on the go, gathering new/novel information and experiences, whether physically observable (Se) or not (Ne) - rapid tempo due to not wanting to slow down and 'organize' the information they're gathering (aversion to Si/Ni) - whole lot fits great.

*IP - Introversion and Perception*

adventurous but reserved 
changeable
nonconforming
restless and individualistic 
tend to delay action

So, the IP unlike the EP is people-based, an _identity_-tribe guy, and this is reflected in Rogers IP Outer Image - reserved reflects the general introverted nature, nonconforming is people/tribe specific (stay true to self identity), restless and individualistic etc etc - again, it's a fit for OPs adaption of Tony Robbins _Human Needs_ and is true to Ti/Fi.

*EJ - Extraversion and Judgment* 

fast moving and energetic 
confident looking and charming 
often conform 
talkative 
sometimes blustery
conscientious

Here's the _tribe_-identity guys - and, again, reflected in Roger Pearmans Outer Image descriptors - often conform, conscientious, sometimes blustery, talkative, charming etc - this is all _people_-focused, tribe stuff - this doesn't pertain to information so much as it does people - so here we see the EJ and IP sharing "similarities" that they don't share with the EP and following IJ - however, I'd like to note, by "similarities" I literally mean no more than sharing a people-focus, whereby the IP is about their own self-identity, and the EJ is about identity within a tribe - these are actually _complete opposites_ - please don't misinterpret this as me saying IP and EJ types are "alike" in any way outside of them being _opposite ends_ of the same spectrum - see this relationship, and that of the EP-IJ, as being similar to a dom-inf relationship. Same _spectrum_, but opposite ends and therefore not similar at all.

*IJ - Introversion and Judgment* 

introspective and persevering 
often quiet and modest 
deferent but hard to convince 
may overcontrol impulses

..and here, we see the opposite of the EP - the IJ, often quiet, modest, respectful but difficult to convince (due to preference for their own introverted perceiving - they oppose gathering _new _information at mass), may overcontrol impulses (directly opposes typical EP behaviour) - introspective and persevering is also the opposite of the EPs activeness and preference for seeking novel experiences. Instead, preferring a more controlled, or organized if you will - intake of information.

"Organize" in this fashion shouldn't be interpreted as an 'action' of sorts, that's something the decider/judging functions do and I'm speaking strictly from an Ni/Si perspective of 'organizing' the incoming information - see it as a filter - Se lets a lot of new, observable information in (and actively seeks it out) for example, Si filters a whole lot of it out and only lets in what's piquing the Si types interest the most - this idea is also _true to Jung_ - I understand the term 'organize' puts people off, makes you think J functions - but understand it as more of a 'filter' - something 'organizing' what information is coming in *_before_* you can possibly consciously organize it ie make sense of it in the traditional sense of the word - perhaps "_Filtering_" might be a more apt and easily relatable term.


I just found it interesting how perfectly the _Human Needs_ lined up - which are essentially used to observe and track the _orientation/attitude _of the functions/letters, with Roger Pearmans _Outer Image_.

You're bang on the money with regards to typing in this fashion, as these are readily observable differences - but more importantly, they can be compared and contrasted with their opposites - you can cut the board down by typing in this fashion big time - in fact, something here might stand out as a "definitely what I'm seeing" and you might be able to go straight for say, IxxP - make sure you're cross-referencing this with a definitely-not and complete-aversion-to ExxJ and you've just clean removed a whole chunk of possibilities, in a more productive and accurate method than "I think that's Fi!1!!! _INFP_!"


----------



## reckful

Turi said:


> The MBTI types based on behaviour exclusively - without the aid of a certified practitioner, it types entirely by self-reported external behaviour (online), in _Gifts Differing_, Myers basically says anything _besides _behaviour is semantics as far as typing is concerned.


47 of the 93 items on the official Step I MBTI — that's _half of them_, Turi — are "Which word in each pair appeals to you more?" items.

Pairs like abstract/solid, gentle/firm, facts/ideas, convincing/touching, systematic/spontaneous, determined/devoted, impulse/decision, and on and on.

Half the items, Turi.

So... when you tell your fellow forumites that "the MBTI types based on behaviour exclusively," and that "Myers basically says anything _besides_ behaviour is semantics as far as typing is concerned," it makes my head hurt.

Is that what you were after, Turi? Are you trying to make our heads hurt?


----------



## Turi

reckful said:


> 47 of the 93 items on the official Step I MBTI — that's _half of them_, Turi — are "Which word in each pair appeals to you more?" items.
> 
> Pairs like abstract/solid, gentle/firm, facts/ideas, convincing/touching, systematic/spontaneous, determined/devoted, impulse/decision, and on and on.
> 
> Half the items, Turi.
> 
> So... when you tell your fellow forumites that "the MBTI types based on behaviour exclusively," and that "Myers basically says anything _besides_ behaviour is semantics as far as typing is concerned," it makes my head hurt.
> 
> Is that what you were after, Turi? Are you trying to make our heads hurt?


If you'd kindly read the section I quoted from _Gifts Differing_, you'd see what I posted is bang on the money, son.

Now with regards to selecting, yourself, which words personally appeal to you more, I struggle to understand how exactly this isn't behaviour related - when you're offered the choice between convincing and touching, @reckful - are you going to tell me you'll select the word that in no way represents your behaviour in the slightest, instead opting for the one that doesn't? 
Is that what you're implying here? 

Which part of selecting the word that appeals to you more, is not behaviour related? 

Definition of behaviour from the Oxford Dictionary:


> the way in which one acts or conducts oneself, especially towards others.


So all things considered, will you select 'touching'?
If not, _why not_?

Before you suggest 'it doesn't appeal to me more than convincing', I ask again, _why not_?

A little Myers for ya:


> Together, perception and judgment, which make up a large portion of people’s total mental activity, govern much of their *outer behavior*, because perception—by definition—determines what people see in a situation, and their judgment determines what they decide to do about it.
> 
> Thus, it is reasonable that basic differences in perception or judgment should result in corresponding *differences in behavior*.





> Briefly, the theory is that much seemingly chance variation in human *behavior* is not due to chance; it is in fact the logical result of a few basic, observable differences in mental functioning.





> The JP preference does show itself in simple and accessible reactions. It serves admirably as the fourth dichotomy if one detail is borne in mind: It deals only with outward behavior and thus points only indirectly to the dominant process of the introvert.





> Therefore, people who work with the Type Indicator should observe the preferences in action and compare the descriptions with the everyday behavior of the types.


Bolded emphasis is mine. 
Yes indeed, the MBTI distinguishes types from one another based on behaviour.


----------



## reckful

Turi said:


> Now with regards to selecting, yourself, which words personally appeal to you more, I struggle to understand how exactly this isn't behaviour related - when you're offered the choice between convincing and touching, @reckful - are you going to tell me you'll select the word that in no way represents your behaviour in the slightest, instead opting for the one that doesn't?
> Is that what you're implying here?


So we've moved to behavior-_related_ now, have we?

Well, if choosing whether the word "convincing" or the word "touching" _appeals to me more_ is a "behavior related" item, what the heck kind of personality test item wouldn't be "behavior related"?

In the post I replied to, you distinguished between "behaviour" and "semantics." What would a "semantical" test item look like — since you obviously think "which word appeals to you more?" items don't qualify?

I should maybe also remind you — and our audience — that in telling us that "the worlds most popular type indicator types solely on external behaviour, unashamedly" (as you put it), you also emphasized that the "behavioral" stuff the MBTI tested on "exclusively" was "superficial" stuff.

Is it really your position that whether "facts" or "ideas" appeal to someone more is not only an "external behaviour" thing, but also a "superficial" thing?


----------



## Turi

reckful said:


> So we've moved to behavior-_related_ now, have we?
> 
> Well, if choosing whether the word "convincing" or the word "touching" _appeals to me more_ is a "behavior related" item, what the heck kind of personality test item wouldn't be "behavior related"?


This was the point, son, I was telling another poster the MBTI types according to behaviour. 



> In the post I replied to, you distinguished between "behaviour" and "semantics." What would a "semantical" test item look like — since you obviously think "which word appeals to you more?" items don't qualify?


How should I know, I didn't make this distinction. 
You'd know this if you'd kindly read the Myers quote I provided - I did no more than rephrase her words. 



> I should maybe also remind you — and our audience — that in telling us that "the worlds most popular type indicator types solely on external behaviour, unashamedly" (as you put it), you also emphasized that the "behavioral" stuff the MBTI tested on "exclusively" was "superficial" stuff.


Indeed, it is - the superficial, surface level behavioral aspects are exactly what the MBTI uses to type. 
This is observable information.. this is literally what Myers says in _Gifts Differing_ - MBTI types by surface level observations and differences. 
Is this actually up for debate? I'm somewhat confused as to what you're attempting to argue against or rebut, here. 



> Is it really your position that whether "facts" or "ideas" appeal to someone more is not only an "external behaviour" thing, but also a "superficial" thing?


_Superficial_ is Myers term, not mine - indeed, she viewed the superficial aspects often the _easiest_ to report, of course she notes this isn't all there is to the preferences (paraphrased) but the essence of the four preferences is an 'observable reality', ergo those superficial aspects are what helps to type, as opposed to any deeper 'trivialities'. 

So your question here is somewhat irrelevant.


----------



## Ocean Helm

Turi said:


> @Ocean Helm - what exactly do you think the middle two letters are then?
> 
> Preferences?
> _a greater liking for one alternative over another or others._
> Alternative what? Preference for _what_?
> 
> Processes?
> _a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end._
> Process of _what_?


Structurally it's a 4-factor system which outputs a 4-factor result which treat all 4 factors as independent. Two of its factors are based on Jung's _Psychological Types_ and how people prefer his 4 functions: T or F, and S or N.

You're the one saying the *methodology* is based on The Functions. If you're really just going to try to play gotcha semantic games over "well two of the letters are loosely based on four functions" that completely avoids the point that you should know I was trying to make.

I guess I should've said that that MBTI type-sorting doesn't look at function *stacks* or function *dynamics* or methodologically deviate from 4 additive factors, but yes two factors have theoretical linkage to pitting two pairs the 4 Jungian functions against each other.

T > F and N > S for example, could mean T > F > N > S, T > N > F > S, T > N > S > F, N > S > T > F, N > T > S > F, or N > T > F > S, not to mention the inequalities The test itself doesn't concern itself with which one of those is most accurate.


Cataclysm said:


> Have you even read the information on their website? They track people's objective characteristics in a consistent manner. That's what matters. Two people looking at the same information and determining that it is in fact the same thing. That is what they're doing and it's working.


Just because they call things "objective" doesn't make it so. It doesn't even seem like you tried to understand what I wrote, for that matter.

Let me ask you:

What is their success rate for "two people looking at the same information and determining that it is the same thing"?
How does this success rate compare to other potential methods of typing people, where people would be trained based on a centralized source (let's say one based on MBTI letters)?
What can be done with the "personality type" obtained through this method? How does it stack up against MBTI and NEO PI-R in predictive capabilities, etc?
How does "Objective"Personality suggest dealing with its DaveSuperDrones looking at different information on the same person, and coming up with different results?


----------



## Turi

Ocean Helm said:


> Structurally it's a 4-factor system which outputs a 4-factor result which treat all 4 factors as independent. Two of its factors are based on Jung's _Psychological Types_ and how people prefer his 4 functions: T or F, and S or N.


If you do a little reading, you'll also find the I/E dichotomy comes from Jung as well - this dichotomy, notably, is the most extensively studied and researched aspect of personality theory, fwiw.



> You're the one saying the *methodology* is based on The Functions. If you're really just going to try to play gotcha semantic games over "well two of the letters are loosely based on four functions" that completely avoids the point that you should know I was trying to make.


This would of course be incorrect, though I know you know I know you know this.



> I guess I should've said that that MBTI type-sorting doesn't look at function *stacks* or function *dynamics* or methodologically deviate from 4 additive factors, but yes two factors have theoretical linkage to pitting two pairs the 4 Jungian functions against each other.


Indeed, they type sort based upon superficial aspects of one's personality - self-reported ones, at that - and then they just slap the dynamics and shit onto it for basically no reason because that shit wasn't tested for in any way.

Totally with you here.


----------



## Ocean Helm

Turi said:


> If you do a little reading, you'll also find the I/E dichotomy comes from Jung as well - this dichotomy, notably, is the most extensively studied and researched aspect of personality theory, fwiw.


You may want to read up on some logic (link).


> This would of course be incorrect, though I know you know I know you know this.


Uh, no?


> Indeed, they type sort based upon superficial aspects of one's personality - self-reported ones, at that - and then they just slap the dynamics and shit onto it for basically no reason because that shit wasn't tested for in any way.
> 
> Totally with you here.


Very few are totally "superficial". The vast majority are not "behavioral" at all, and rather than asking what people do (which would be what is seen from the outside), the questions ask in terms of psychological preferences. Even the most-hated J/P questions ask stuff like:
"In most instances, do you prefer to go with the flow, or follow a schedule?"

It's asking about behavioral preferences sure, but not from a behavioristic standpoint, which would be actually about what you end up doing. This is, instead, about your internal preference. Something which can't be observed by a DaveSuperDrone.


----------



## Turi

@Ocean Helm - yes, it's behavioural. How is this up for debate?

If they ain't scanning your brain, they're measuring behavioural aspects of your personality to sort your type. 
Honestly, is this actually up for debate? Seriously?

The whole point of the MBTI is to sort people out into overall behavioural styles. It's like the goal of the damn MBTI. 

This can not seriously be up for debate, can it?


----------



## Ocean Helm

Turi said:


> @Ocean Helm - yes, it's behavioural. How is this up for debate?
> 
> If they ain't scanning your brain, they're measuring behavioural aspects of your personality to sort your type.
> Honestly, is this actually up for debate? Seriously?


Well there's a key semantic difference between "behavioristic" and "behavioral". "Behavioristic" is a psychology term and is usually the slant word used against MBTI, while "behavioral" simply means "involving, relating to, or emphasizing behavior".

The question I posted was behavioral, but not behavioristic.

Most of the questions are not behavioral, because they aren't asking about even your attitude toward behavioral issues.

It seems like you're creating a false dichotomy in your head between neuroscience and behavioral, in that if it's not neuroscientific it's behavioral. The majority of the questions are neither, especially those used to measure the F/T and N/S factors.


> The whole point of the MBTI is to sort people out into overall behavioural styles. It's like the goal of the damn MBTI.
> 
> This can not seriously be up for debate, can it?


Let's not shift the goalposts here. This isn't about the "point of the MBTI", which may not explicitly even exist for all I know. We were talking about type-sorting using the "Type Indicator" and how "behavioral" the questions are. And the answer to that is "not very".


----------



## Turi

@Ocean Helm - according to you, lol. 

I'm not going to be brainwashed here, nor will I be pulled into any pseudo-intellectual wankery regarding semantics - I'll leave that to the T types - you believe what _you_ want, and I'll follow the facts, which is of course, that the MBTI attempts to sort type, via behaviour - superficial, surface level behaviour at that, as noted in _Gifts Differing_* - you'd know this, if you'd read the book.

*read earlier posts before trying to catch me out here, already covered it.


----------



## Ocean Helm

Turi said:


> @Ocean Helm - according to you, lol.


You can read a dictionary.


> I'm not going to be brainwashed here, nor will I be pulled into any pseudo-intellectual wankery regarding semantics - I'll leave that to the T types - you believe what _you_ want, and I'll follow the facts, which is of course, that the MBTI attempts to sort type, via behaviour - superficial, surface level behaviour at that, as noted in _Gifts Differing_* - you'd know this, if you'd read the book.
> 
> *read earlier posts before trying to catch me out here, already covered it.


If you cared about *meaning* you'd care about semantics, but it seems like you'd rather focus your energies elsewhere:








Keep on pushing!


----------



## reckful

Turi said:


> This was the point, son, I was telling another poster the MBTI types according to behaviour.
> 
> 
> How should I know, I didn't make this distinction.
> You'd know this if you'd kindly read the Myers quote I provided - *I did no more than rephrase her words*.
> 
> 
> Indeed, it is - the superficial, surface level behavioral aspects are exactly what the MBTI uses to type.
> This is observable information.. this is literally what Myers says in _Gifts Differing_ - MBTI types by surface level observations and differences.
> Is this actually up for debate? I'm somewhat confused as to what you're attempting to argue against or rebut, here.
> 
> 
> _Superficial_ is Myers term, not mine - indeed, she viewed the superficial aspects often the _easiest_ to report, of course she notes this isn't all there is to the preferences (paraphrased) but the essence of the four preferences is an 'observable reality', ergo those superficial aspects are what helps to type, as opposed to any deeper 'trivialities'.
> 
> So your question here is somewhat irrelevant.


The Step I MBTI is a 93-item indicator (in its current form) that you and I are both familiar with.

You took a Myers quote, distorted it into a cartoonish straw-man, and presented your distortion to your fellow forumites as if it was an accurate characterization of that 93-item indicator.

Myers explained that it was a mistake to view the MBTI items associated with one of the dimensions as if they were intended to add up to, in effect, a _definition_ of that dimension. Here's what she said:



> We have been less interested in defining the processes than in describing the _consequences_ of each preference as far as we can observe or infer them, and in using the most accessible consequences (not the most important) to develop a means of identifying type.
> 
> Since the more superficial aspects of type are often the easiest to report, many trivial reactions are useful for identification, but these are merely straws to show which way the wind blows. They are not the wind. It would be a mistake to assume that the essence of an attitude or of a perceptive or judging process is defined by its trivial surface effects or by the test items that reflect it or by the words used to describe it.


Myers talks about test items describing "consequences" of a preference that "we can observe or infer." She doesn't say anything about "external behavior"; and she says "observe *or infer*." Whether "facts" or "ideas" appeal to someone more is an _internal preference_ that the MBTI taker reports; not "external behavior" that is "observed." And _internal preferences_ that the taker reports make up well over half of the MBTI items, since it's not just the word-pair questions that fall in that category.

And do you really need me to point out that there's a pretty wide chasm between Myers noting that "superficial aspects of type are often the easiest to report," and Turi mistakenly (or dishonestly) telling us that Myers' description means that "the worlds most popular type indicator types *solely on external behaviour, unashamedly,*" and that the "behavioral" stuff the MBTI tested on "exclusively" was "superficial" stuff?

Myers no more said that the MBTI test items focus "exclusively" on "superficial aspects of type" than she said that they focus "exclusively" on "external behavior."

If that passage in _Gifts Differing_ was all somebody looked at, they might _misinterpret_ Myers to be saying something like your characterization. Buuut there's really no excuse for somebody to interpret her that way if they've got an _actual copy of the MBTI_ they can refer to.

Whether somebody prefers "facts" or "ideas" is no more a superficial thing than it is an "external behavior" thing. Jung may not have done the greatest job assigning that distinction to the proper typological slot, but he couldn't have been more emphatic in his belief that that distinction went to the core of someone's type — and he was right.

[ADDED: I've put a little Jung in the spoiler, for the wonks in the audience.]


* *




In the first chapter of Psychological Types, describing the ways in which several of the bitterest doctrinal controversies in the early Christian church reflected the E/I divide, Jung wrote that beneath those controversies "lies the great psychological schism. The one position attaches supreme value and importance to the sensuously perceptible; ... the other maintains that the chief value lies with the abstract and extra-human."

"The man who is oriented to the idea apprehends and reacts from the standpoint of the idea," Jung explained. "But the man who is oriented to the object apprehends and reacts from the standpoint of sensation. For him the abstract is of secondary importance, since what must be thought about things seems to him relatively inessential, while for the former it is just the reverse."



I ask you again: Is it really your position that whether "facts" or "ideas" appeal to someone more is not only an "external behaviour" thing, but also a "superficial" thing?

In any case, let's review how we got here.

As already noted, the MBTI is an instrument that you and I are both familiar with, but instead of basing your characterization of its items on the actual instrument, you took a Myers quote, distorted it into a cartoonish straw-man, and then — unashamedly! — told your fellow forumites that your distortion was an accurate characterization of the MBTI.

And now, instead of either admitting you screwed up or presenting us with a respectable defense of that silly characterization, you're basically falling back on saying, gee, reckful, I don't know why you're going on about _what the MBTI instrument is actually like_. Didn't you read that Myers quote, hrmm, hrmm? All I did was "rephrase her words."


----------



## Knave

@Turi


----------



## Turi

@reckful - yes, she says behaviour. See: post 35 - if you'd like more, I'm happy to oblige.
I have no clue why you're attempting to have a shot at me, accusing me of being dishonest - maybe, you know, understand the theory before responding.

I suppose I'll have to spell it out for you, all step-by-step like - the MBTI sorts via their preferences for four (4) dichotomies - I/E, S/N, T/F and J/P.

I/E is introversion/extroversion - this pertains to the way we prefer to receive energy - this facet is the most studied aspect of personality theory of all time and is arguably the one with the most research and studies behind it - it is entirely behavioural - are you "quiet" or "hearty"? Etc. Do I need to explain how this relates to external behaviour, @reckful?

S/N is sensing/intuition - this pertains to the ways we prefer to receive information - do you prefer "facts" or "ideas"? Do I need to break down exactly how somebody that prefers facts, asks for the facts, is more interested in 'the facts' than underlying ideas/concepts/theories differs in external behaviour to someone that prefers "ideas" Do I truly need to do this? Where's your N at, @reckful?

T/F is thinking/feeling - this pertains to ways in which we prefer to make decisions - with your "heart" or your "head"? Do I need to break down this down all step by step for you, @reckful?, do I need to go all Martika here, @reckful in order for you to be able to realize this relates to ones behaviour? Is it so difficult, to imagine one person that prefers to make decisions based on their own subjective evaluations ie likes/dislikes and another person making decisions based on what they believe is the logically correct thing to do, as differing in behaviour, @reckful ?
Whether or not this is internal or external behaviour doesn't make any difference, at all, to the way the MBTI actually sorts people into types, because *drumroll*..

..J/P is judging/perceiving - this pertains to what, @reckful ? Sing it with me - ones _outer behaviour_. When someone winds up late for work, as opposed to being early or on time - is it your position these people possess no observable external behavioural differences, @reckful ?
Is this your position? 
This dichotomy, is easily the most controversial dichotomy as it completely screws with everybodies type when they try slapping all kinds of type-dynamics onto you that don't fit.
Fact remains, they quite literally sort you out according to which 'preference' or 'function', whatever you wanna call it - is what, @reckful ?
The one you display.. where, @reckful ? Externally. Yes. Correct. 
This J/P dichotomy sorts everybody into how they appear _externally_.


So, I repeat one more time for you, @reckful - the MBTI types people according to external behaviour.
Yes indeed it does. More than that, the online version types people according, entirely, to self-reported external behaviour.

You can sit there and argue semantics with me all day - the simple fact remains, that without scanning peoples brains, the results will always reflect ones external behaviour, and this is how the MBTI types as it's the easiest way to report observable differences among people - just like it says in that nice little quote you posted. 

If there's anything else you need help with, I'm happy to oblige.
'til then, let's get back on topic.
All the best.


----------



## Aluminum Frost

Turi getting destroyed out here


----------



## Turi

Aluminum Frost said:


> Turi getting destroyed out here


Riiiiiiiight, here's a little info on the P/J divide:



> *The fourth letter in a person’s type, which is either J for Judging or P for Perceiving, identifies whether he or she takes a Judging or Perceiving attitude toward the outer world. *
> 
> People who prefer a Judging attitude when they are extraverting enjoy making decisions and reaching closure when dealing with the outer world; they tend to function best when they can be systematic, methodical, and scheduled.
> 
> People who prefer a Perceiving attitude when they are extraverting enjoy gathering as much information about the outer world as is possible; they tend to function best when they can take a flexible, adaptable, and spontaneous approach to the world.
> 
> Remember that J points to a person’s preferred judging function, shown in the third letter of a person’s type (T or F), while P points to a person’s preferred perceiving function, shown in the second letter of a type (S or N).


Quenk, Naomi L.. Was That Really Me?: How Everyday Stress Brings Out Our Hidden Personality (Kindle Locations 585-591). Hodder & Stoughton. Kindle Edition.​

The MBTI absolutely, 100%, definitively, types people according to _*external behaviour*_.
I'm somewhat amused this is even up for debate considering there is actually an entire preference, P/J, that quite literally types you and everyone else, according to external behaviour.

Your end type is 100% based on external behaviour.
I'll say it again and however many more times I need to - the MBTI, beyond and and all doubt, types you according to external behaviour.

Take you, an 'ISTP' - this is because according to the MBTI, you extrovert your Sensing - the sole reason you would be typed as an ISTP, despite the MBTI and CPP Inc. believing you lead with a Judging function (Thinking) - you're classed as a 'P' due to *being typed by external behaviour.*


----------



## SilentScream

> _We have been less interested in defining the processes than in *describing the *__*consequences of each preference as far as we can observe or infer them*, and in using the most accessible consequences (not the most important) to develop a means of identifying type.
> _


What else is the _consequence_ of each _preference_ if not _behavior_?


----------



## Asura

Alright, MBTI debate is fine but just keep it civil please. No more meme videos etc.

Not going to dive too far into this one but I really don't recommend trying to argue over the specifics of MBTI. There is a lot of ways one could interpret information.

The MBTI is not intended or designed to type through external behavior or even behavior at all but instead through _preferences_. The entire idea is that the dichotomies are _innate preferences_ that do not dictate behavior but instead _drive us to likely behavior. _
"Objective typing" Is a smart way to type individuals that follows a decent method imo. I'm quite decent at visually typing and I've always told individuals I start with the first and the last letter as it has the most impact on how a persons mind processes information.

See the big point there though is _how the mind processes information._ I'm not directly looking at their actions but instead what seems to be the drive behind those actions.

MBTI is based on Jungs work which of course had commonalities with Freud. MBTI as a theory is a _psychodynamic _ approach to personality that focuses on the underlying aspects of human behavior and not the behavior itself. 

In MBTI the *Why* always outweighs the *How*; Whether you support functions, dichotomies or stacks.


----------



## Turi

Asura said:


> Alright, MBTI debate is fine but just keep it civil please. No more meme videos etc.
> 
> Not going to dive too far into this one but I really don't recommend trying to argue over the specifics of MBTI. There is a lot of ways one could interpret information.
> 
> The MBTI is not intended or designed to type through external behavior or even behavior at all but instead through _preferences_. The entire idea is that the dichotomies are _innate preferences_ that do not dictate behavior but instead _drive us to likely behavior. _
> "Objective typing" Is a smart way to type individuals that follows a decent method imo. I'm quite decent at visually typing and I've always told individuals I start with the first and the last letter as it has the most impact on how a persons mind processes information.
> 
> See the big point there though is _how the mind processes information._ I'm not directly looking at their actions but instead what seems to be the drive behind those actions.
> 
> MBTI is based on Jungs work which of course had commonalities with Freud. MBTI as a theory is a _psychodynamic _ approach to personality that focuses on the underlying aspects of human behavior and not the behavior itself.
> 
> In MBTI the *Why* always outweighs the *How*; Whether you support functions, dichotomies or stacks.


This still tells me it's based on external behaviour.
Even your own methodology, starting with first and last letter screams external behaviour - it's literally I/E and P/J which as you know, pertains to the ways we interact with the world - out preferred extroverted process.

In looking at what drives peoples actions, you're still deriving your information and therefore basing your assumptions off of those actions.

It's impossible to get around this.
I understand what you're saying, I understand what @reckful is saying - but the fact remains it's not possible for MBTI to type anything besides external behaviour - the P/J thing is just the nail in the coffin, it quite literally sorts types by external behaviour.

Without scanning a brain, we can't know how a mind processes information, other than take educated guesses at it based on external behaviour/actions/choices they make *in the real world*.

I understand it attempts to look at the underlying aspects of human behaviour, but the way in which it does this, is through looking at the superficial aspects of behaviour and basically trying to magic it all together.


----------



## reckful

Reap said:


> What else is the _consequence_ of each _preference_ if not _behavior_?


Whether "facts" or "ideas" _appeal to you more_ is one possible "consequence" of an S/N preference that the official MBTI uses.

I think most people would view that as more of an internal thing than as "external behavior."


----------



## Turi

reckful said:


> Whether "facts" or "ideas" _appeal to you more_ is one possible "consequence" of an S/N preference that the official MBTI uses.
> 
> I think most people would view that as more of an internal thing than as "external behavior."


..does the MBTI type people according to external behaviour?
Before you respond, consider the J/P preference.

I'm amazed this is actually being contended.

Even with this 'facts' and 'ideas' selection you repeatedly bring up - the simple fact is the MBTI will type you according to whether they think you extrovert those facts or ideas (as a P, then) or not (as a J, then) - I'd argue these are both aspects of Thinking but that's beside the point. 

You 100% are typed according to external behaviour.

The box you get put into, is entirely due to external behaviour, even @Asura - a certified practitioner says he starts with I/E and P/J - he starts with external behaviour, outer image - of course he says it's to get at how the mind processes information but you can't ignore the fact it is stemmed from, entirely and purely, external behaviour ie I/E and P/J.


----------



## SilentScream

reckful said:


> Whether "facts" or "ideas" _appeal to you more_ is one possible "consequence" of an S/N preference that the official MBTI uses.
> 
> I think most people would view that as more of an internal thing than as "external behavior."


Fair enough. But in order for you to be able to *determine* the appeal you have to engage in some sort of behavior. And for them to test you on this they need you to imagine what that behavior would be. 

I mean you're not wrong but it's just when you extrapolate from the theory to making it practical you end up developing methodology that revolves around observed and even perceived behavior. 

You can't study or self analyse the process without thinking about the behavior.


----------



## Knave

When questions give you a pair of words or choices, then asks, which one _appeals_ to you more, this has nothing to do with behavior. These are thought-based answers, unrelated to behavior. You can build your little bridge @Turi and connect an individual's answer into the boundary of _behavior_ sure, but the questions themselves aren't related to behavior itself. Unless we're understanding the definition differently, I don't think you can keep pulling imaginary rabbits out of your hat. Let me know if you perceive behavior differently than: BEHAVIOR the way in which one acts or conducts oneself, especially toward others. OR the way in which an animal or person acts in response to a particular situation or stimulus.


----------



## Turi

Knave said:


> When questions give you a pair of words or choices, then asks, which one _appeals_ to you more, this has nothing to do with behavior. These are thought-based answers, unrelated to behavior. You can build your little bridge @Turi and connect an individual's answer into the boundary of _behavior_ sure, but the questions themselves aren't related to behavior itself. Unless we're understanding the definition differently, I don't think you can keep pulling imaginary rabbits out of your hat. Let me know if you perceive behavior differently than: BEHAVIOR the way in which one acts or conducts oneself, especially toward others. OR the way in which an animal or person acts in response to a particular situation or stimulus.


I'm not entirely sure why everybody keeps rambling about specific questions.
If y'all want to keep zooming way too far in, ya boi Turi is going to open up a microscope shop and start making some serious $$$.

The MBTI types you according to external behaviour, your external behaviour is literally what puts you in a specific box, see: P/J.
It's as simple as that.

This isn't actually up for debate.
Anybody with even the most basic understanding of how MBTI types will understand this.

You're typed as an INFP at the moment - the MBTI would type you as an INFP due to external behaviour, they would put you in a certain box because they think you extrovert your perception process ergo, you are being typed by _external behaviour exclusively_.

How the hell is this still up for debate?
It doesn't matter what each individual, uber-specific question is after - _you get typed by external behaviour_.


----------



## Ocean Helm

Turi said:


> I'm not entirely sure why everybody keeps rambling about specific questions.


Maybe because your answers to those specific questions are used to type you in MBTI. If you paid more attention to those specific questions, maybe you wouldn't be so wrong with the rest of what you're saying.


----------



## Turi

Ocean Helm said:


> Maybe because your answers to those specific questions are used to type you in MBTI. If you paid more attention to those specific questions, maybe you wouldn't be so wrong with the rest of what you're saying.


You get typed according to external behaviour.
You literally get put into a box, that best reflects the pattern of _external behaviour_ you best-fit.
This is straight up fact. Not even an opinion.

*Do you consider yourself to be*

more of a spontaneous person
more of an organized person
Ermagahd so psychology so mind-workings so user-specific so "how my brain works".
Horseshit.

You spontaneous? Get in the P line.
You organized? Get in the J line.

*Are you*

easy to get to know
hard to get to know
Holy shit so mental so unique so individual so internal-workings-of-my-inner-mind so deep so intricate so "me and no one else".
BS.

You easy to get to know? Get in the E line.
Hard to get to know? Get in the I line, _NEXT!._

*Which one 'appeals' to you more - but don't tell us why - we'll just take a guess!*

fact
theory
So psychological so much personal depth to my inner soul so brain-wiring so neuroscientific.
You know that's not true.

Fact? GET IN THE S LINE.
Theory? GET IN THE N LINE.

"Uh but what if I base my theories, off of observable facts, like you're supposed to, in order to formulate a plausible hypothesis?"

omg so deep INTJ, definitely, where my $50 at bro??


----------



## Cataclysm

Ocean Helm said:


> Just because they call things "objective" doesn't make it so. It doesn't even seem like you tried to understand what I wrote, for that matter.
> 
> Let me ask you:
> 
> What is their success rate for "two people looking at the same information and determining that it is the same thing"?
> How does this success rate compare to other potential methods of typing people, where people would be trained based on a centralized source (let's say one based on MBTI letters)?
> What can be done with the "personality type" obtained through this method? How does it stack up against MBTI and NEO PI-R in predictive capabilities, etc?
> How does "Objective"Personality suggest dealing with its DaveSuperDrones looking at different information on the same person, and coming up with different results?


They follow the scientific method. What else do you want?

1. They refined their typology until they got 100% success rate.
2. I don't know. What else has been tried?
3. It's about overcoming your weaknesses by discovering what you repress. Say you've always had shit thinking. The way you go about life if you don't want to face your shadow side is overcompensating for everything the shitty thinking brings your way with even more feeling because you think it's easier. They are inherently jungian since they want people to discover every part of themselves and "become whole".
4. Start by looking at the same information. If you still get different results either you or the system needs revising in order to make it more objective.


----------



## Ocean Helm

@Turi, if your point is that *some* of the questions are based on *how you see yourself externally* then I doubt you're going to have any disagreement. However, the near totality what you have been arguing recently simply does not follow from the primary evidence. So yes you can change the goalposts as much as you like but you said this:


Turi said:


> The MBTI types based on behaviour exclusively


And in your most second to last most recent post in the thread you still said this:


Turi said:


> You're typed as an INFP at the moment - the MBTI would type you as an INFP due to external behaviour, they would put you in a certain box because they think you extrovert your perception process ergo, *you are being typed by external behaviour exclusively*


I don't think I need to tell you what "exclusively" means.

So if you are going to:

Actually try to make a point against anything that I've said, or that reckful has said, or that Knave has said, which has to do with there being many questions (I put myself on record saying a "majority") which are not "behavioral"
Defend your own assertion regarding exclusivity


*Then... you're going to actually have to do that.* Criticizing the "depth" of the questions isn't going to cut it, as lacking depth is not an argument for something being related to external behavior. Whatever Myers wrote doesn't change the actual method used for type-sorting. Cherry-picking out individual questions *out of a minority* of questions which can be strongly argued to be behavior-based is not going to do that either.

The way you jump around your posts, which would require a bunch of false equivalences to not be false, is an assault on logic. But I get it: it's about the best you can do here. The actual evidence (the questions) are stacked against you, as there are so many questions (a majority) which do not type you *exclusively on external behavior*. So you can keep up this charade that you aren't wrong, or you can actually take steps toward conveying the honest truth.


Cataclysm said:


> They follow the scientific method. What else do you want?


Their dear leader doesn't even *understand* the scientific method, based on the little I've subjected myself to.


> 1. They refined their typology until they got 100% success rate.


Hahahahahahaha, no you can't really believe this?


> 2. I don't know. What else has been tried?


I don't know either.


> 3. It's about overcoming your weaknesses by discovering what you repress. Say you've always had shit thinking. The way you go about life if you don't want to face your shadow side is overcompensating for everything the shitty thinking brings your way with even more feeling because you think it's easier. They are inherently jungian since they want people to discover every part of themselves and "become whole".


If you want to argue that they partially "capture the spirit of Jung" then that's fine, but this didn't answer my question.


> 4. Start by looking at the same information. If you still get different results either you or the system needs revising in order to make it more objective.


So basically, no answer.


----------



## Turi

@Ocean Helm - you can try for as many mental gymnastic golds as you like, fact is MBTI types you according to external behaviour. Exclusively.

See: P/J and I/E.

You are very literally, typed according to external behaviour.

Thanks for the input, but isn't actually up for debate - I don't appreciate you insinuating I'm dishonest, either. 

I'm merely relaying the facts. 
The MBTI, beyond and and all doubt, types you according to external behaviour. 
The most basic understanding of I/E and P/J will make this abundantly clear.

Actually, can _you_ explain to me P/J, _*and the effect it has on how we are typed/sorted*_?
Why, I'm at a loss and in need of some help - if you're happy to oblige.


----------



## Bastard

Turi said:


> omg so deep INTJ, definitely, where my $50 at bro??


Gave it to my mate Dave. His headcanon was more enticing.


----------



## Ocean Helm

Turi said:


> @Ocean Helm - you can try for as many mental gymnastic golds as you like, fact is MBTI types you according to external behaviour. Exclusively.
> 
> See: P/J and I/E.


Yeah okay @Turi. MBTI types by external behavior "exclusively". See: 2 out of 4 "dichotomies". I guess that makes sense in the Turiverse?

By the way it's only E/I that even comes close to typing "exclusively" by (in this case, self-reporting on) external behavior, if you were to actually read all the questions.


> You are very literally, typed according to external behaviour.


As if anyone has said that you aren't.


> Thanks for the input, but isn't actually up for debate - I don't appreciate you insinuating I'm dishonest, either.


Well maybe you are unaware and it's not dishonesty because it's not conscious. And note that I didn't call you "dishonest" but only used the phrase "the honest truth" which means "the complete truth". If it makes you feel better, replace "honest" with "complete" and re-read.


> I'm merely relaying the facts.
> The MBTI, beyond and and all doubt, types you according to external behaviour.
> The most basic understanding of I/E and P/J will make this abundantly clear.
> 
> Actually, can _you_ explain to me P/J, _*and the effect it has on how we are typed/sorted*_?
> Why, I'm at a loss and in need of some help - if you're happy to oblige.


The questions type you in MBTI, and you can read them!

I'm surprised you are using E/I instead of J/P to make your "types you according to external behavior" argument, as it's the only letter pair which is determined overwhelmingly by (self-reporting on) external behavior.

The J/P questions mostly ask you how you feel about two contrasting approaches, not what you actually do. So I guess you can in the loosest sense say these questions are _behavioral_ as in they relate to behaviors one can make, but they aren't typing you "according to *your external behavior*".

For example:


> In planning a trip, would you prefer to: (a) most of the time do whatever you feel like that day, or (b) know ahead of time what you'll be doing most days?


It's not asking you what you actually end up doing. This is a main difference between the typical E/I questions, and the typical J/P questions.

We can continue on this tangent if you really wish to dispute anything I'm saying, but apart from J/P and E/I, we still have 2 other letter pairs. If you really want to show "exclusivity" or "100%", those would probably be the best places to start, not like your claim even has any way of making it past E/I.


----------



## Turi

Ocean Helm said:


> Yeah okay @Turi. MBTI types by external behavior "exclusively". See: 2 out of 4 "dichotomies". I guess that makes sense in the Turiverse?
> 
> By the way it's only E/I that even comes close to typing "exclusively" by (in this case, self-reporting on) external behavior, if you were to actually read all the questions.


Nope, J/P too, as I've brought up repeatedly.



> As if anyone has said that you aren't.


Then why are you even responding?



> I'm surprised you are using E/I instead of J/P to make your "types you according to external behavior" argument, as it's the only letter pair which is determined overwhelmingly by (self-reporting on) external behavior.


Literally have raised J/P every time, so, there's that?



> We can continue on this tangent if you really wish to dispute anything I'm saying, but apart from J/P and E/I, we still have 2 other letter pairs. If you really want to show "exclusivity" or "100%", those would probably be the best places to start, not like your claim even has any way of making it past E/I.


This is where you're wrong - I do not need to address the other two letters. 
S/N and T/F aren't applicable and are irrelevant - regardless of what selections you pick on any S/N and T/F question - you are typed according to external behaviour.

If you prefer introversion, and score higher on J than P - your external behaviour is simply assumed, you are typed according to 'extroverting' your Thinking or Feeling - you are absolutely, beyond any and all doubt, typed according to your external behaviour.
It doesn't matter if you pick facts, or theories - if you're an I and a J then you are thrown into the IJ box a box whereby it is simply assumed you 'extrovert' (see, externalize) your judging.

It doesn't get any more straightforward than this. Sensing, Intuition, Thinking and Feeling don't matter, they might as well not even be included - you're typed exclusively according to (what they assume to be) your external behaviour.


Take you, INTP, you get thrown into this box, because you selected more I options than E (assuming you've even taken the official test, that is) and thrown into the "I extrovert my perceptions!" box before because you prefer P over J - despite selecting more I than E responses, you are definitely _typed according to assumed external behaviour_.


I understand you and ya boi @reckful are trying to catch me out, somehow, accusing me of being disingenuous/dishonest in whatever way you want to go about it - by raising S/N and T/F questions - _this is too specific and completely misses the point_, which is that you are _typed _according to _external behaviour_.

Even if you pick _literally every single I over E option_ - if you pick more P than J you're thrown into the _Extroverted _Perceiver camp, the P reflecting an assumed _external behaviour_ - _this is how you are typed_, _this is how you are forced into the box_ - there is literally _no respect for individual differences_, you are crammed into whatever box, due to their assumption with regards to your _external behaviour_.


----------



## Bastard

Turi said:


> I understand you and ya boi reckful are trying to catch me out, somehow, accusing me of being disingenuous/dishonest in whatever way you want to go about it - by raising S/N and T/F questions - _this is too specific and completely misses the point_, which is that you are _typed _according to _external behaviour_.


Honestly, dude, they're just adopting a critical approach to your preaching. That's worthy of praise and respect, not whining.


----------



## Ocean Helm

@Turi have you shifted the goalposts away from exclusivity and the type-sorting process now?

* *












Keep on pushing!



It's as if you give a bunch of irrelevant information and then somehow reckful and I are "missing the point" just because we don't follow your fallacious leaps to a conclusion which can be summed up with one word: *wrong.*

The problem is *you aren't making a point with the information that you are presenting*, at least not one which addresses the concerns of who you are arguing with.

J/P doesn't type you according to your external behavior, for the vast majority of questions, but apparently that doesn't even matter.

Yes, you are type sorted, *partially* due to your self-reporting on your external behavior, and you can see this in the E/I questions. *So what???*

N/S and F/T don't matter? Almost every time I talk with you it's like taking a journey into the Turiverse headcanon where you just make up your own information and logic.

I have specifically referred to the *type-sorting* mechanism this whole time, not any proposed "function stacks" that are supposed to follow from that, yet here you are bringing up function stacks. Completely irrelevant! Talk about _missing the point_...


----------



## Turi

@Ocean Helm - you're too blinded by your emotions to respond - take some time out, chill a bit, maybe re-read my posts, and get back to me.

Now, before you go and think things over - I'd like you to do a little research into what the P/J dichotomy actually represents, because you're implying here, that E/I is mainly all that is based on external behaviour - this oughta help you out a bit.

I would argue, the P/J dichotomy has just as much influence over how the MBTI types you - as it's intended to reflect the orientation/attitude of your supposed preferred _extroverted _function - it is _absolutely _an "_orientation_" dichotomy and is therefore, related to external behaviour equally as much as I/E.

You can bold as many words as you like, you can keep posting the same image of somebody moving goal posts* as you like, you can attempt to shout down whatever you will from the highest horse you can find - and it won't change a thing - the MBTI types you according to external behaviour.

This isn't actually up for debate, lol.
It's literally how the system works.

*literally never moved goal posts and have remained arguing the exact same point this entire time - if you're seeing them in some other place, that's on you.


----------



## Ocean Helm

@Turi I could just say that you're too blinded by your love for DaveSuperPowers to respond.

It seems like you want to keep on moving the goalposts further. I am not talking about what the "P/J dichotomy" theoretically represents. I am talking about the primary method for *type-sorting*, the method that to my knowledge is used to *type-sort* for all respectable research in the MBTI world. Look, I bolded *type-sort* and I will keep bolding *type-sort*, because this is what we were talking about. When you say "MBTI types you according to...", we are talking about a *type-sorting* process, and that in most cases is done through the MBTI test, and the only other "endorsed" way I know of is through having a "Certified MBTI Professional" help you find your type.

And here is what Asura, who has his certification, said in this same thread:


> The MBTI is not intended or designed to type through external behavior or even behavior at all but instead through preferences


So, there you have it. Testing is the primary method of type-sorting, and doesn't exclusively or mostly rely on external behavior. In fact the majority doesn't if you read all the questions. The only other method I know involves Certified MBTI Professionals, who we can safely assume are not trained to type people based on external behavior.

All this "well, Myers said blah blah blah in a book" *misses the point* if our point is about how MBTI type-sorts people.

Anything that MBTI provides regarding your assigned type's predicted *external* behaviors, is an *output from* your type code arrived at through a type-sorting process, and *not* an *input into* the type-sorting process.

When you say otherwise, you are wrong, wrong, wrong. There's no better way to say it.


----------



## Turi

Ocean Helm said:


> It seems like you want to keep on moving the goalposts further. I am not talking about what the "P/J dichotomy" theoretically represents. I am talking about the primary method for *type-sorting*, the method that to my knowledge is used to *type-sort* for all respectable research in the MBTI world. Look, I bolded *type-sort* and I will keep bolding *type-sort*, because this is what we were talking about. When you say "MBTI types you according to...", we are talking about a *type-sorting* process, and that in most cases is done through the MBTI test, and the only other "endorsed" way I know of is through having a "Certified MBTI Professional" help you find your type.


Haven't moved the goalposts at all - it appears to me, from this response - that you were simply unable to see them in the first place.



> And here is what Asura, who has his certification, said in this same thread:
> 
> 
> So, there you have it. Testing is the primary method of type-sorting, and doesn't exclusively or mostly rely on external behavior. In fact the majority doesn't if you read all the questions. The only other method I know involves Certified MBTI Professionals, who we can safely assume are not trained to type people based on external behavior.


Mate you're still not getting it. The test itself, sorts you according to external behaviour.
Again, please read up on I/E and P/J before responding - take a break, let the information be digested.

Take some time out and actually try to understand what I'm posting, rather than hastily cobble together rebuttals for literally anything and everything I say - you could spare yourself the embarrassment, and simply read a little bit about I/E and J/P.

You are typed according to external behaviour. The box you get put into, is the box that best reflects your external behaviour.
It is in accordance with which patterns of external behaviour you best fit.

It would appear to me, that you have a somewhat twisted understanding of what exactly the MBTI is - you're glorifying it into something it's not and doesn't pretend to be - it's not some objective, unique type-sorter that respects individual differences - it puts you into a few ridiculously broad boxes, according to general, overall, external behaviour.

I understand what Asura is saying - but, external behaviour, preferences - what's the difference here, this reminds me of you trying to get around S/N and T/F being functions, lol - yes, it's about preferences - what preferences?
"Preferences" itself is meaningless. What is being preferred? Behaviour.
The ways we take in information, and make decisions pertain to behaviour - this is how you're typed.
Whether you prefer to receive energy from within, or from without, relates to what - behaviour - this is how you're typed.
The entire P/J dichotomy, is revolved entirely around the ways we extrovert ourselves - this is how you're typed.

If anybody here is shifting goal-posts, it's you - however I'll bet it's a little frustrating when the bait isn't being taken.
I remain strong to my opinion, that is the MBTI sorts you according to external behaviour - this is reflected in the I/E and P/J dichotomies, and is definitely how you are typed.

S/N and T/F don't actually matter here - the actual goal of the MBTI, the way it types you - is in accordance with your external behaviour - do you extrovert your perceiving, or judging functions?
This is how you're typed.
Do you prefer to be alone, or with others? This is external behaviour, and again, it is how you're typed.

The orientations of the way you prefer to receive and give energy, and your first 'extroverted' function (ie external behaviour), is how you are typed.



> Anything that MBTI provides regarding your assigned type's predicted *external* behaviors, is an *output from* your type code arrived at through a type-sorting process, and *not* an *input into* the type-sorting process.


Okay @Ocean Helm the type the MBTI gives you has absolutely nothing to do with your responses at all, they just make it up, you pick some options, and they just provide you with whatever the house special is on that day.
Absurd.


----------



## Ocean Helm

@Turi mate, this is too funny. If you want to see how "the MBTI" sorts you, the way to do that is to read the actual questions, because they are directly involved in giving you your type.

You can continue avoiding this basic point as you dart around from one thing to another.

Speaking of missing the point:


> Okay @Ocean Helm the type the MBTI gives you has absolutely nothing to do with your responses at all, they just make it up, you pick some options, and they just provide you with whatever the house special is on that day.
> Absurd.


A sarcastic response to... _something_? I don't know what that something is though. Certainly not anything I said.

I've basically covered everything that needs to be said in previous posts, and you're still not getting it so I don't know what to say.


----------



## Turi

Ocean Helm said:


> @Turi mate, this is too funny. If you want to see how "the MBTI" sorts you, the way to do that is to read the actual questions, because they are directly involved in giving you your type.


Yes, now we're getting somewhere - they are indeed - now read up on I/E and P/J.



> I've basically covered everything that needs to be said in previous posts, and you're still not getting it so I don't know what to say.


Well, what you could do, is admit that the MBTI types you in accordance with which patterns of external behaviour (or, "preferences, if you will, lol) you best fit.

I'm not even sure how or why this is up for debate.
What do you actually think the MBTI is?


----------



## Ocean Helm

Turi said:


> Yes, now we're getting somewhere - they are indeed - now read up on I/E and P/J.


I have the literal questions right in front of me: the ones which *type-sort* you. I don't need any more "reading" to see how you are typed, because they are from the test that types you. Background theory means nothing when you have the mechanics right in front of you. MBTI authorities can claim anything, but when those things aren't actually being used to type you, they are irrelevant, for the purpose of what I thought we were debating. If you'd like to make a more general critique of everything with the MBTI name on it, then go for it, but can we please do that elsewhere for the time being?


> Well, what you could do, is admit that the MBTI types you in accordance with which patterns of external behaviour (or, "preferences, if you will, lol) you best fit.


The MBTI Form M (Step I) test, which I have right in front of me, types you in accordance with how you answer the questions, which I have right in front of me. And only the E/I section has a strong focus on how you actually behave externally.


> I'm not even sure how or why this is up for debate.
> What do you actually think the MBTI is?


Was I mistaken that the *type-sorting* process was what was being debated; i.e. what MBTI authorities endorse as methods for obtaining your MBTI type?

You're the one who made indefensible comments, then you do the typical dance, bouncing all over the place and contorting yourself in knots for DaveSuperPowers.

What is "the MBTI"? You can look at what it stands for. It's the "Myers-Briggs Personality Inventory" - literally the test. And that's what I've had in front of me this whole time while you've asserted various nonsensical things. But it doesn't seem like you're willing to back down so where can this discussion even lead?


----------



## Turi

Ah, well, we're apparently seeing things from different angles - I the forest, you the trees.
All the best.


----------



## Cataclysm

Ocean Helm said:


> [MENTION=457522]Their dear leader doesn't even *understand* the scientific method, based on the little I've subjected myself to.


 Why? 



> Hahahahahahaha, no you can't really believe this?


 I believe them. They seem honest and like they know what they're talking about. 



> I don't know either.


 I don't think anything besides MBTI, Big5 and maybe socionics has been tried. MBTI or socionics obviously aren't very accurate.



> If you want to argue that they partially "capture the spirit of Jung" then that's fine, but this didn't answer my question.


 Overcoming your weaknesses is what can be done with it. As far as predictive capabilities go you can probably compare their success rate to that of MBTI or Big5 if you wanna look that info up. 



> So basically, no answer.


 Why not? Didn't you see the letters?


----------



## Knave

You keep harping on the J/P dichotomy and how the official MBTI unequivocally types people based exclusively on behavior, @Turi--then you disregard middle dichotomies because what do they matter in typing, yes? Anyway, back to the point. Let's look over some J/P questions on the official Step I MBTI and debate how you can say, without a doubt, behavior dictates the answer a person chooses *exclusively*:

-When you go somewhere for the day, would you rather
*J plan what you will do and when, or
*P just go

_would you rather,_ in no way dictates behavior. Someone may rather _just go,_ but their behavior could show something entirely different. Within their mind--their internal thought processes--they may just go, but then plans begin to develop on a spontaneous excursion. Said person begins setting timetables, places to see, avenues to venture, when initially it was no doubt, in the mind, to _just go._ But what is their behavior showing? It would show someone that plans--a distinct J. But back to the question: When you go somewhere for the day, _would you rather?_ Would you rather doesn't necessarily correlate to behavior, although of course it can. The question eludes to a mentality or mindset, not behavior. 

-Do you consider yourself to be
*P more of a spontaneous person, or
*J more of an organized person

What does the question say? Are you more spontaneous or organized? No. It is worded a certain way for a reason. _Do you consider yourself to be,_ which again, doesn't necessarily point to behavior, but a mentaily, a subjective, internalized way of thought. A person could consider themselves to be more organized, and within their mindset or way of thinking they are, but externally, *behaviorally,* they may appear more spontaneous. Again, the question tries to get inside, into the mind, the process of thought of a particular individual--not the actual behavior of said person.

-Do you prefer to do many things
*P on the spur of the moment, or
*J according to your plans?

I'm not going to go into detail to convey what's apparent over and over, but again, what is the question getting at? Is it seeking to pinpoint the behavior of the individual, or get insights through preferences? The answer is in the question, and *unequivocally* is about preference (_Do you *prefer* to do many things_), which our very own certified MBTI practitioner, Asura, pointed out, and once again was laid out in front of you by @Ocean Helm. This is obviously the intention of the MBTI, to type according to thought processes and preferences--which doesn't have to, or necessarily correlate with behavior. Preferences in no way, _*exclusively*_ equal behavior. 

Those are the first three J/P questions on the assessment. I could go through all of them and prove that most don't have to be attributed to behavior. Throughout, the questions continually are phrased, "Do you prefer," "do you like to," "what appeals to you," etc. You're smart. Do you believe there is intent within the semantics of the questions? And as an intuitive, as you claim to lead with Ni, I suspect you can grasp the underlying aim of the system and theory within the context of the _official_ MBTI test. 

So again, tell us how the official MBTI types us *exclusively* based on behavior? I understand your perspective that we are _typed_ based on what we show the world, our first extroverted function, which you link exclusively with behavior--but, the official MBTI assessment *does not* type exclusively according to behavior. You have one vision or perspective, always have, which can change to something entirely conflicting once the wind blows in a different direction in Turiverse--but because of your scope in the moment, you always seem to be blinded within the confines of whatever glasses you're wearing at the time. What you see is truth, and everything else is absurd--until you change tune once again, then claim your ideas have always been a model of consistency.


----------



## Turi

Knave said:


> You keep harping on the J/P dichotomy and how the official MBTI unequivocally types people based exclusively on behavior, @Turi--then you disregard middle dichotomies because what do they matter in typing, yes? Anyway, back to the point. Let's look over some J/P questions on the official Step I MBTI and debate how you can say, without a doubt, behavior dictates the answer a person chooses *exclusively*:


The middle dichotomies don't affect how you're actually typed to the extent external behaviour does, at all.
You are typed according to how you externalize those middle preferences - the MBTI is all kinds of backwards here, on one hand, it claims S/N and T/F to be the 'core' of your type - yet completely disregards this aspect when it comes to actually indicating your type in favour of sorting/typing you based on your external behaviour ie what you extrovert.

This isn't actually up for debate, this is simply the facts and so I don't see a need to respond to the rest of your post nor do I see a need to entertain the unfounded, unrealistic and unsupported attempted character assassination at the end of it.

The simple fact remains, you are typed in accordance with your external behaviour - this is how the MBTI determines your best fit type - your best-fit type is literally the pattern of behaviour that you have the most in common with.

From the Oxford Dictionary:


> *behaviour*
> the way in which one acts or conducts oneself, especially towards others.


No, the MBTI doesn't sort your type according to that at all. h:

_Please _- before responding guys - read about introversion and extroversion, and read about judging and perceiving and the ways they affect how you are typed.


----------



## reckful

"In considering the qualities listed above, readers may have difficulty evaluating their own JP preference because of an inconsistency between what they feel they should do; what they actually do, and what they naturally tend to do. It is the natural tendency that reveals the basic preference. A person's idea of what is right may be an acquired ideal, borrowed from another type, and the person's actual behavior may reflect a somewhat uncongenial good habit learned from parents or accepted because of the person's own dogged efforts."

— Isabel Myers, Gifts Differing


----------



## Turi

reckful said:


> "In considering the qualities listed above, readers may have difficulty evaluating their own JP preference because of an inconsistency between what they feel they should do; what they actually do, and what they naturally tend to do. It is the natural tendency that reveals the basic preference. A person's idea of what is right may be an acquired ideal, borrowed from another type, and the person's actual behavior may reflect a somewhat uncongenial good habit learned from parents or accepted because of the person's own dogged efforts."
> 
> — Isabel Myers, Gifts Differing


Yo bra, lets sing the _very __next bit_ together:



> It is important, especially for introverts, to remember that the JP preference applies to a person’s customary attitude toward the outer world. What shows in most casual contacts with other people (and governs the JP index on the Type Indicator) is the extraverted process, the one usually relied on for the conduct of outer life. For extraverts, it is the same as the dominant process; for introverts it is not.


Myers, Isabel Briggs; Myers, Peter B.. Gifts Differing: Understanding Personality Type (Kindle Locations 1137-1140). Hodder & Stoughton. Kindle Edition. 


Ohhhh, so it _does _type you according to external behaviour, and literally says as much when you're not cherry-picking information, no matter how you try look at it?
Yes, it does. h:


----------



## reckful

Turi said:


> Yo bra, lets sing the _very __next bit_ together:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is important, especially for introverts, to remember that the JP preference applies to a person’s customary attitude toward the outer world. What shows in most casual contacts with other people (and governs the JP index on the Type Indicator) is the extraverted process, the one usually relied on for the conduct of outer life. For extraverts, it is the same as the dominant process; for introverts it is not.
> 
> 
> 
> Myers, Isabel Briggs; Myers, Peter B.. Gifts Differing: Understanding Personality Type (Kindle Locations 1137-1140). Hodder & Stoughton. Kindle Edition.
> 
> 
> Ohhhh, so it _does _type you according to external behaviour, and literally says as much when you're not cherry-picking information, no matter how you try look at it?
> Yes, it does. h:
Click to expand...

Sorry, fella, but that follow-up doesn't contradict the point made in the passage I quoted. The _innate natural tendency_ is the person's "JP preference," whether it's reflected in their actual behavior or — for any number of reasons, a couple of which she describes — it isn't reflected in their actual behavior.

If "natural tendency" = "external behavior," then sure, the "external behavior" reflects the type.

But if "natural tendency" =/= "external behavior" ("what they actually do," as Myers puts it), then the "external behavior" is inconsistent with the type — because "it is the natural tendency that reveals the basic preference."


----------



## Turi

reckful said:


> Sorry, fella, but that follow-up doesn't contradict the point made in the passage I quoted. The _innate natural tendency_ is the person's "JP preference," whether it's reflected in their actual behavior or — for any number of reasons, a couple of which she describes — it isn't reflected in their actual behavior.
> 
> If "natural tendency" = "external behavior," then sure, the "external behavior" reflects the type.
> 
> But if "natural tendency" =/= "external behavior" ("what they actually do," as Myers puts it), then the "external behavior" is inconsistent with the type — because "it is the natural tendency that reveals the basic preference."


It's not intended to 'contradict' anything. 

..tendency:
a natural or prevailing disposition to move, proceed, or act in some direction or toward some point, end, or result

a proneness to a particular kind of thought or action

h:

Squirm all you like. 
MBTI types according to external behaviour. 
Fact. 

I feel like you're relying on some hypothetical case whereby somebody has a 'natural tendency' for one thing, yet this thing never manifests in their behaviour, and so they select all the P 'preferences' despite only ever matching J. 
If this is the case, I'd argue _against_ P here, being a preference in the first place.

This is basically a scapegoat of sorts, this is just allowing a falsification of type - "yeah I know I'm a TOTAL S in everything I do but I prefer N, I never show it but I 'prefer' it - don't make me prove it though because my entire life history only ever strengthened S haha but I toatz prefer N!"

If this is what you're essentially arguing for, you can have it - I don't believe this for a second. 

If you pick the J options the test says, your external behaviour = extroverted judging. 

Yes. This is how you're typed.


----------



## Pastelle

Wow! Dave is really back?! He's was entertaining when I watched him back in the day. But it has to be noted that he takes an old-guard behaviorist take on the functions.


----------



## Cataclysm

Pastelle said:


> Wow! Dave is really back?! He's was entertaining when I watched him back in the day. But it has to be noted that he takes an old-guard behaviorist take on the functions.


I know. He's even funnier now.


----------



## Aluminum Frost

Let's face facts, David isn't a smart cookie by any stretch of the imagination. He's been doing this for like 10 years and he can't even type himself correctly. He's incapable, probably needs someone to help him wipe his own butt and if that's the case than I think I know who that person would be.


----------



## Drecon

Aluminum Frost said:


> Let's face facts, David isn't a smart cookie by any stretch of the imagination. He's been doing this for like 10 years and he can't even type himself correctly. He's incapable, probably needs someone to help him wipe his own butt and if that's the case than I think I know who that person would be.


Subtle


----------



## Aluminum Frost

Drecon said:


> Subtle


k


----------



## WickerDeer

Thread Closed


----------

