# To everyone: Do you take this seriously?



## lackofmops (Mar 13, 2014)

nO_d3N1AL said:


> Depends on what you mean by "seriously". I haven't come across any trolls, and most people seem really nice on here. Do I doubt the possibility that some people pretend to be someone they're not? No, but why would someone spend time building a fake persona? I think a forum like this is a great place to talk to other people because you can assume that most people who are interested in MBTI are likely to be understanding of others and/or themselves. The name of this forum is "Personality Café", and that's how it can be thought of - a large café with different "tables" being the subforums/threads. To ask whether one takes a forum "seriously" is liking asking whether they take Starbucks seriously. It just doesn't make sense.
> 
> And MBTI is a useful framework for trying to understand people. Whether it is factually/scientifically accurate is not my main concern. If it helps people to learn more about themselves and others, then I see no reason to NOT take it seriously. Of course, some may read too much into all the cognitive functions stuff and fall into the trap of believing that there are LITERALLY only 16 different types of people in the world - that no-one is truly unique, but anything can be taken to extremes. I'm not sure what the purpose of this thread is.


If you haven't come across any trolls, you obviously haven't met any ENTPs.


----------



## Laeona (Feb 20, 2012)

@DarthSkywalker, @The_Wanderer, @rosered89

To all those who have quoted the Forer Effect as their disclaimer in MBTI....what is your draw to MBTI and these forums then? And are you applying the Forer Effect to the illegitimacy of people who try to use MBTI, or to the illegitimacy of MBTI, or both?


----------



## pernoctator (May 1, 2012)

Laeona said:


> @DarthSkywalker, @The_Wanderer, @rosered89
> 
> To all those who have quoted the Forer Effect as their disclaimer in MBTI....what is your draw to MBTI and these forums then? And are you applying the Forer Effect to the illegitimacy of people who try to use MBTI, or to the illegitimacy of MBTI, or both?


If they're applying it to MBTI itself, I would say they don't understand the theory. MBTI is a system of classification based on dichotomies, which means, by definition, everyone *must* be one of the 16 types, and one type only. You could argue some of the theorizing about how cognitive functions interact etc., but that has nothing to do with the Forer Effect...


----------



## rosered89 (Nov 12, 2013)

@Laeona
MBTI is valid to the extenct that some personality tendencies are observable in people. However, human beings are complex, the issue becomes when people make career and romantic decisions based on their type,the influence of environment in a person's character makes each one of us a unique entity, the real life application is not black and white. Also, i do not like it when i read things in a type description that resembles something you may find in a horoscope, such as all NFs are artistic and all NTs are scientific. It ticks me off when i see people here in the forum propagating generalizations from their experience with a few people, an example would be: "all INFJs are people pleasers" just because they had a negative experience with someone and then read something which reinforced their belief through confirmation bias. To stop all my babbling, the point is to realize these theories are prone to human error, and are not the Gospel truth.


----------



## Laeona (Feb 20, 2012)

@rosered89

I concur with your thoughts. The human element always puts variables into the equation that we didn't expect. Which is great, because I love diversity.

Unlike the Bible though, which is largely available to everyone, the official MBTI curriculum seems to be out of most people's reach, and what we are left with is an abbreviated and black-market version for the masses. That leaves it open to any number of interpretations and embellishments and misuse. And therein may lay most of the blame for its faulty dissemination.


----------



## DarthSkywalker (Jul 24, 2011)

pernoctator said:


> If they're applying it to MBTI itself, I would say they don't understand the theory. MBTI is a system of classification based on dichotomies, which means, by definition, everyone *must* be one of the 16 types, and one type only. You could argue some of the theorizing about how cognitive functions interact etc., but that has nothing to do with the Forer Effect...


The point is that nobody truly 100% fits into any specific classification. We often test differently depending on our states of mind. Also, some missing critical personality elements include charisma, sense of humor, psychological resilience, emotional intelligence. I am sure you can think of others that do not necessarily fall into any of the categories defined by Mbti.

@Laeona
The answer to that question is probably trivial for most of us: for fun! For the same reasons I might ask you what your zodiac is and speculate on what sort of sex we will have


----------



## pernoctator (May 1, 2012)

DarthSkywalker said:


> The point is that nobody truly 100% fits into any specific classification. We often test differently depending on our states of mind. Also, some missing critical personality elements include charisma, sense of humor, psychological resilience, emotional intelligence.


But you say this because you're judging whether people "fit" based on profiles that predict interests and behaviors of people of each classification, not the actual classifications.




DarthSkywalker said:


> I am sure you can think of others that do not necessarily fall into any of the categories defined by Mbti.


This is like saying that there are people on Earth who do not fall into either the northern or southern hemisphere.


----------



## DarthSkywalker (Jul 24, 2011)

@pernoctator
What I'm saying is that you're not 'INTP' 100% of the time and that your personality is more sophisticated than those 4 letters.


----------



## pernoctator (May 1, 2012)

DarthSkywalker said:


> @pernoctator
> What I'm saying is that you're not 'INTP' 100% of the time and that your personality is more sophisticated than those 4 letters.


Okay, so you're saying type changes over time. That's a separate aspect of the theory, but like I said has nothing to do with the Forer Effect.


----------



## DarthSkywalker (Jul 24, 2011)

pernoctator said:


> Okay, so you're saying type changes over time. That's a separate aspect of the theory, but like I said has nothing to do with the Forer Effect.


It does, because someone who has been 'typed' will tend to define themselves as 100% accurate to the personality type definition although they may have been typed with only 51% accuracy. For example, they answered 6/10 questions checking if they are extroverted, therefore they are defined as extroverted. This person starts to believe they are extroverted because the Mbti test said so. Meanwhile, they are introverts. 

Having faith in the test's accuracy causes one to look for reasons why that test is accurate rather than weighing its accuracy objectively.

Does this make sense?


----------



## pernoctator (May 1, 2012)

@DarthSkywalker So in other words, you're applying it to people who haven't studied it well, not to MBTI itself. Take a look at @Laeona's question and my reply again... apparently what I said doesn't apply to you.


----------



## DarthSkywalker (Jul 24, 2011)

pernoctator said:


> @DarthSkywalker So in other words, you're applying it to people who haven't studied it well, not to MBTI itself. Take a look at @Laeona's question and my reply again... apparently what I said doesn't apply to you.


No. I'm saying people can be equally introverted and extroverted simultaneously but believe they are only introverted or only extroverted. The same applies to the other categories.

Only a sith deals on absolutes haha


----------



## FaveteLinguis (Mar 5, 2010)

I don't take the mbti as seriously as others may. It does have some utility in understanding others, but people in general are complex and take a lifetime to truly understand.

What I do like is partaking in some of the discussions around here. There are a plethora of interesting individuals here with a collective depth of experiences and wisdom you won't find in many other places. 

Plus I get to scratch my ego here every once in awhile. Not a bad gig in my opinion.


----------



## pernoctator (May 1, 2012)

DarthSkywalker said:


> No. I'm saying people can be equally introverted and extroverted simultaneously but believe they are only introverted or only extroverted. The same applies to the other categories.


No, it doesn't apply to any of the categories, because the categories are literally defined as opposites. Again it's like saying a point on the globe is located in both the north and the south. If you say you can be both simultaneously, you are using a different definition of I and E than MBTI is -- presumably a definition based on behavior.


----------



## Laeona (Feb 20, 2012)

DarthSkywalker said:


> @_Laeona_
> The answer to that question is probably trivial for most of us: for fun! For the same reasons I might ask you what your zodiac is and speculate on what sort of sex we will have


Fun? Trivial?! Never!!! 
Surprise! Taurus. You? 
And was that a pickup line you just snuck in there?



pernoctator said:


> This is like saying that there are people on Earth who do not fall into either the northern or southern hemisphere.


Don't tempt me. I think this can be proven.



DarthSkywalker said:


> @_pernoctator_
> What I'm saying is that you're not 'INTP' 100% of the time and that your personality is more sophisticated than those 4 letters.


Wouldn't a more accurate statement be that "According to the definition of an INTP, you are one. But you are not destined to act like one 100% of the time?". Same could be said about that zodiac thing.



DarthSkywalker said:


> It does, because someone who has been 'typed' will tend to define themselves as 100% accurate to the personality type definition although they may have been typed with only 51% accuracy. For example, they answered 6/10 questions checking if they are extroverted, therefore they are defined as extroverted. This person starts to believe they are extroverted because the Mbti test said so. Meanwhile, they are introverts.
> 
> Having faith in the test's accuracy causes one to look for reasons why that test is accurate rather than weighing its accuracy objectively.
> 
> Does this make sense?


It makes sense, but your statements (and actually your application of the Forer Effect) suggest that everyone is going to react to MBTI this way. Biggest thing I learned from MBTI is that not all of us are going to react the same way to the same circumstance. You certainly didn't. And I didn't. Which is why MBTI and the Forer Effect are not 100%. Nothing in life is 100%. But we often take it anyway.



pernoctator said:


> No, it doesn't apply to any of the categories, because the categories are literally defined as opposites. Again it's like saying a point on the globe is located in both the north and the south. If you say you can be both simultaneously, you are using a different definition of I and E than MBTI is -- presumably a definition based on behavior.


The only thing we can say definitively about the human race is that they are human (and some will question even that). People can say they are Christian. What is Christian? It means different things to different people, and yet that doesn't stop people from including themselves in the group, even when others don't think they fit. And then there are those who think of themselves as a Buddhist and a Christian. Is it possible? Sure! They share traits of both. We're human. We're messy. We don't stay within the lines. Especially when those lines are drawn by a subjective way of thinking. 

Is it possible to be both I and E? Better believe it. But is MBTI about individual letters or about how all those letters act together, or both? We're all going to feel compatible with a type for different reasons. It's all subjective, which means that can change. But it doesn't necessarily mean an INTP or an INFP or an ENTJ stops being their type. An INTP can still pursue the accuracy of information in a way an INFP could never enjoy. An INFP will still have crazy notions that an ENTJ would never entertain. And an ENTJ will probably thrive at being in control in a way that an INFP and INTP would shy from. But it doesn't mean we won't dabble from time to time to see what the other sides are like.

You are all taking this waaaay too seriously  I thought that was my job


----------



## Glory (Sep 28, 2013)

I'd say I take most things pretty seriously when I'm trying to understand them. If things (including people) are being uncooperative I simply go with it til it's just a bore for me... what happens happens.


----------



## pernoctator (May 1, 2012)

Laeona said:


> The only thing we can say definitively about the human race is that they are human (and some will question even that). People can say they are Christian. What is Christian? *It means different things to different people, and yet that doesn't stop people from including themselves in the group, even when others don't think they fit.* And then there are those who think of themselves as a Buddhist and a Christian. Is it possible? Sure! They share traits of both. We're human. We're messy. We don't stay within the lines. Especially when those lines are drawn by a subjective way of thinking.
> 
> Is it possible to be both I and E? Better believe it. But is MBTI about individual letters or about how all those letters act together, or both? We're all going to feel compatible with a type for different reasons. It's all subjective, which means that can change. But it doesn't necessarily mean an INTP or an INFP or an ENTJ stops being their type. An INTP can still pursue the accuracy of information in a way an INFP could never enjoy. An INFP will still have crazy notions that an ENTJ would never entertain. And an ENTJ will probably thrive at being in control in a way that an INFP and INTP would shy from. But it doesn't mean we won't dabble from time to time to see what the other sides are like.
> 
> You are all taking this waaaay too seriously  I thought that was my job


That's why I said: _you are using a different definition of I and E than MBTI is_. A better real-world example would be Jews and Gentiles. These groups are definitively all-inclusive and mutually-exclusive, like MBTI categories. The only way you could claim to be both or neither is by using a different definition. And just because you may not be able to pinpoint which category an individual belongs to doesn't mean the categories aren't well-defined.


----------



## DarthSkywalker (Jul 24, 2011)

Laeona said:


> Fun? Trivial?! Never!!!
> Surprise! Taurus. You?
> And was that a pickup line you just snuck in there?


Mine is Leo... lion and bull, I think one is prey to the other haha


----------



## pernoctator (May 1, 2012)

@DarthSkywalker Speaking of misunderstanding dichotomies, I just noticed your sig:



> There's 11 types of people in this world: those who understand binary, those who don't, and those who make this lame joke.


There are 10 types: the third group is the first type.


----------



## DarthSkywalker (Jul 24, 2011)

pernoctator said:


> @DarthSkywalker Speaking of misunderstanding dichotomies, I just noticed your sig:
> 
> 
> 
> There are 10 types: the third group is the first type.


The third type is a category of its own because you don't know if the person makes the joke cause they really understand it or cause they want to sound nerdy.... man, explaining jokes is lame.

Dichotomies only exist in philosophy. There are no real absolutes.


----------



## pernoctator (May 1, 2012)

DarthSkywalker said:


> The third type is a category of its own because you don't know if the person makes the joke cause they really understand it or cause they want to sound nerdy.... man, explaining jokes is lame.
> 
> Dichotomies only exist in philosophy. There are no real absolutes.


The jokers are absolutely members of the first two, not a distinct category. Both types absolutely exist, and absolutely include everyone. It has nothing to do with philosophy. A model of dichotomies makes no claims, it simply describes. Saying it doesn't "exist" is meaningless; it's like saying language or math doesn't exist.


----------



## DarthSkywalker (Jul 24, 2011)

pernoctator said:


> The jokers are absolutely members of the first two, not a distinct category. Both types absolutely exist, and absolutely include everyone. It has nothing to do with philosophy. A model of dichotomies makes no claims, it simply describes. Saying it doesn't "exist" is meaningless; it's like saying language or math doesn't exist.


Saying language and math don't exist can be true, for example, it doesn't exist for someone who has never needed math or language. 

The jokers get their own category because you don't know if they do or don't understand binary.

You know... there are really 101 types of people... those who understand binary, those who don't, those who make this lame joke, and then those who try to debug this joke haha


----------



## pernoctator (May 1, 2012)




----------



## ALongTime (Apr 19, 2014)

I've found that MBTI and cognitive functions is most useful as a way of simply understanding _that_ people are different, and a tool for discussing those differences. Whether the typings and cognitive functions are scientifically valid or not (I'm not really interested in the answer to that), it's the idea that counts, and appreciating some of the ways that some people are different from you is very helpful in relationships and in learning to respect and understand others.


----------



## DarthSkywalker (Jul 24, 2011)

pernoctator said:


>


lol did you mean this:


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

I take the forum kinda seriously, its made of and used by other people. Mbti I find it fascinating. Im not sure to what degree I believe it to be truth and "real". But there is some golden stuffs here. Maybe its a good way to discuss experiences that can't be explain with our normal language? To use functions and stuffs.


----------



## Laeona (Feb 20, 2012)

DarthSkywalker said:


> lol did you mean this:


LOL And the horrified INFP emotion-reader in the background


----------



## Laeona (Feb 20, 2012)

pernoctator said:


>


Dear, you are over-thinking this too much *massages cranium* You gotta stop doing that. Your brain will super-nova


----------



## pernoctator (May 1, 2012)

A wizard never overthinks, @Laeona, nor does he think too little. He thinks precisely as much as he means to.


----------



## Laeona (Feb 20, 2012)

DarthSkywalker said:


> Mine is Leo... lion and bull, I think one is prey to the other haha


Don't worry, I'll be gentle with you


----------



## Laeona (Feb 20, 2012)

pernoctator said:


> A wizard never overthinks, @_Laeona_, nor does he think too little. He thinks precisely as much as he means to.


Great! Now which tunnel gets us out of here?


----------



## Stendhal (May 31, 2014)

No to everything. The internet is an enormous joke.


----------



## Ichigo (Sep 8, 2014)

I use it quite often to type other people so I can understand them better, but I realize that it's just a theory and you can't really put 7 billion people in 16 boxes. But I'd say I actually do take it quite seriously.


----------



## DarthSkywalker (Jul 24, 2011)

Laeona said:


> Don't worry, I'll be gentle with you


That's a strange way to ask for mercy


----------



## Laeona (Feb 20, 2012)

DarthSkywalker said:


> That's a strange way to ask for mercy



Fixed signs are so much fun to be around :kitteh:


----------



## DarthSkywalker (Jul 24, 2011)

Laeona said:


> Fixed signs are so much fun to be around :kitteh:
> 
> View attachment 192858


Obviously I'd be the cat in that situation haha


----------



## Laeona (Feb 20, 2012)

DarthSkywalker said:


> Obviously I'd be the cat in that situation haha


lol Things are not always as they seem though


----------

