Being an """introvert""" is boring and cringe, but being a post-left Landian primitivist is based and cool

@@duncanclarke The more words you add to your ideology, the more personality you have

@@qabbala1015 Ideology is my will to power

@@dugglebay3483 making use of others too strong of an attachment to some ideology is my will to power

theres EEG proof of differences in mbti people and it still has some relation to the big 5. These people just dont wanna be labeled as unopen trend followers.

+1

also, one shouldn't feel caged by it, cause you change and so does your category

Exactly my though thanks to put the world I can understand that we critisize MBTI but if it's always comparing with astrology it's make me rolling my eyes so hard, NPC that thinking they smart but repeat something wrong 🤣

But it's not really descriptive. It's theoretical. That's why the Big-5 actually *is* descriptive. It's empirical.

@@DangRenBo well some peoples telling that empirical studies aren't relavent at least what I seen with COVID treatment that been reject for this reason

This is so f***ing true and I know what side does that rhymes with it and now it is ruining MBTA and then and then 16 personality test that is what’s ruining MTI and has these people say it’s puedosicence

Yep, it's good info for those who know how to use it and not overinterprete it.

@@markusaurelius83 yeah

You're still incorrect though... when you claim "in reality there's only one I tend to be" Because Jung literally did admit during an interview that "a type is not static, it changes in the course of life" and that claim of his have had successfully proven accurate after the Covid pandemic hit people's social situations. In fact, psychologists use the Big 5 test and they found out that tens of thousands of people's personality have had really changed drastically after the covid pandemic massively influenced their social situations.

Nono. They dont put the warning sign on the website. At least... Tell people that theys researchers might actually not right... But i didnt see any of that sign on site. So u can see they just pride on they own. Its sad to say this but they just trying to manipulate u for no reason . That all. In fact some of them might looklike purp hair unicorn species tran whatever. They dont deserve respect much. Sorry

This is what I've joked about doing but I haven't met that many people who've asked me my astrology sign

A good way to test astrology people is to always initially lie and say you were a gemini, I gather that's like the bad one, and see how they react. If they actually change how they treat you they should be avoided, if they just go "neat" and nothing more then they're safe.

@@hedgehog3180No, they aren't safe either way. One is just seemingly less extreme.

@@hedgehog3180 Definitely avoid someone who treats you accordingly to your astrology sign. Run from them.

Well these kinda girls are dumb, and you’re a dick

That’s brilliant 😂 making sure to space out the rowdy kids and compose the seating to her liking, while abdicating responsibility to some imaginary outside expertise on personality. I’ll have to do that!

Lmao, did it work?

@@Samuelwastaken Honestly i dont remember too well, but i did really like the people i sat with most the time so maybe it did lol? I do remember how one time during a group project the 4 kids in a group all happened to have the same type and the teacher got weirdly triggered by that saying stuff like "aw great, 4 intjs, just my luck, nothing will ever get done in this group!" and the kids were staring at her like um ok? it was really awkward Also pretty much over a third of the class had intj and entj which are like the rarest ones? I think it's bc when we took the quiz we just had to report back to the teacher what we got and kids probably just looked up the rarest types to look cool and then told her, so wasn't even that accurate. And in class us kids made a fake kingdom where our jobs were based on our type and i was the only ISTP, so i can proudly claim i was the 6th grade's token "craftsman" lmao sorry for writing so much

lmao

Are there any changes in your classmates' behavior? Like, they could try to fit in the stereotypical description of their type n stuff

it really isn't. it depends on how much value you attach to it, MBTI is not supposed to be the be all and end all, it is a descriptive model that only says something about ones natural inclinations. Not that a person is excluded from anything else.

Explain how because I really don't get it.

I get what you mean and many people I know who are very much into MBTI say so at one moment, and then they start to argue what type is a character from a game or a movie or anime and they get so wild and they don't even take it as a possibility that a character can display both opposing fuctions, which are not even opposites according to psychology (yes you can have both strong Fe and Fi) @@ZTRCTGuy

Dang, sorry to hear that man. That hiring practice should be illegal

The actual MBTI actually seriously advises, and I don’t think it even allows employees to hire, or fire individuals on the bases of their personality profile. You can be rest assured that that employer uses the 16 personalities test, which is not the MBTI and inaccurate

@@duncanclarke It is, and if that employer did in fact fire someone due to not having the ‘right’ MBTI type and actually administer the actual MBTI test, the MBTI company can actually sue them. They don’t allow employer to hire and fire on the bases of MBTI type

@@sylviaowega3839 On what legal basis can the MBTI company sue them? They don't own MBTI and cannot regulate its use. Even if they are licensing tests and have terms stating this in the licensing agreement contracts are not in fact strictly binding and it almost certainly wouldn't hold up in court as contracts generally cannot bind signatories outside of the relationship of the contract itself. Same as how Apple might have EULAs forbidding the use of their products for certain things but these have regularly been overturned in court because you cannot limit how a customer uses a product beyond what the law states. Also lets be honest, what exactly is the sales appeal of MBTI tests other than this? This sounds more like a way for the MBTI company to avoid culpability rather than actual policy. Similar to how companies making lie detectors will always say that you can't use their products to actually determine truth but then will heavily imply it in their marketing, they just make sure to never take the step where they could get sued for financial damages.

However much I think that the cognitive functions make a lot of logical sense, the 16 personalities tests (and especially this practice in employment) is completely asinine and bullshit overall

Also about how you said mbti is really wrong in 1:20 Specially because the whole letters of the mbti are very dumb at saying how cognitive functions actually work. And the meaning of what they are is also not that close to what one assumes from the names.

Not to correlate mbti and Astrology.. I hopefully don't wanted everyone to underestimated both sides whether they're totally have different agendas or preferences on describing one's individual. Astrology is much more of a oddball system studying through life cycles not just for one's personality, but for events in other aspects that is way beyond logic (birth charts, profections, synastry) and very vague to understand in a scientific way where people see it as a shallow overly bias because of Horoscopes which is mostly intended unto fortune telling business and Pop Astrology. Mbti on the other hand is under Typology, and it has more than one theorized concept like cognitive functions, enneagrams, alignments etc. . I'm way more into self-discoveries so I learned that these two are a never-ending deep lessons to analyze/improve our lives by it's man-made archetypes. Neither one has to be glorified or must've taken seriously to justify how valid it was.

Take that from me having these psychological profile or labels whenever I wanted to be known as myself. -ISFP 4w5 - 6w5 - 9w1 sx/sp Virgo sun, Scorpio moon, Taurus rising.

Very well worded, 100 percent agree. I've found learning about my own cognitive functions to be massively important as it's allowed me to become aware of my natural tendencies/preferences in how i think and act, and consciously build/work on developing my weaker functions, and its helped me to become a more well rounded person.

As someone who studies both Jung and the MBTI system and has for years I agree. I find there an issue though, the majority of the public tends to rely on pop culture variations of MBTI such as 16 Personalities -> that test and site is trash. The system itself at least according to my perspective is the mechanical makeup and projected biases of the supposed cognitive functions. Example being (NE vs SI). Jung's og functions were based on patterns he observed within the patients he worked with and the symbolism within mythology + religious practices. Even if his theory would hold some truth the scope will still be limited as Jung and Freud both believed the conscious mind was limited and personality is often fabricated and associated via the conscious mind. We as humans are primarily Unconscious and Subsconcious beings, and at least according to Jung that has no type. It simply adapts to it's environment and gives into genetic biases. Overall, I agree with you. I figured I'd add my two cents. Lemme know what you think :)

A number of people on reddit have pointed this out, and I acknowledge this oversight. But at the same time, I think my points still apply to the "real" mbti.

@@duncanclarke yeah i commented it in your reddit post lol

@@duncanclarke To a certain extent, it depends on what you're trying to predict with MBTI. For me and most others that subscribe to it (and recognise its obvious flaws of black and white thinking), see it as a tool for understanding cognition and how people gather information and make judgements, that's it; There will be correlation with behaviour, for example my type; ENTP is stereotypically a debating jokester of sorts but there is really no prediction in behaviour. Socionics is yet another system and follows the same rules as MBTI (with regards to cognitive functions) but each function is more of an "energy" measuring tool of sorts. Obviously, there's a great deal of self centred identity seeking in the typology community which is why so many astrologers seek it as another system but the fact remains that most of us just use it as a tool to measure one aspect of a person. Neurotyping charts are another, IQ tests could be considered one, etc...

That makes 16personalities basically more reliable than MBTI because instead of just dichotomous letters, you get percentages which is way more accurate. But most people don't care about the percentages and just go with their four letters... what makes it unreliable again anyway.

@@tetrahexaeder6312 depends on what test you’re taking. Many will quantify how likely you match a certain function.

Thanks, man :)

MBTI is far deeper and more accurate than you know.

@@MichaelDamianPHD🥱

I'm glad my points resonated with you so deeply. Thanks a lot for that comment. I really appreciate your thoughts :)

@@kolobur298 Best viewpoint

@@kolobur298 literally best way to put it. I just wish people didn’t treat it like a holy gospel

Yes, even of the 16 personality types are not very accurate, the breakdown of cognitive functions and how people use them can definitely be a powerful tool in many ways.

MBTI is the exact opposite of astrology. It takes already existing characteristics, and labels them. It's based on observation. While astrology is based on pure speculation.

He did made fun of it though.

@@andreanegret3942 There's a difference between humor and mocking.

@@andreanegret3942 If you thought that was making fun you're way too sensitive.

As someone whom is a supporter of the MBTI, I can say it for that very reason that some academics and other individuals have a bad perception of the personality indicator. The purpose behind the MBTI test is to understand yourself and other people better, and not cast some of your friends out just because they have a different MBTI from you.

@@sylviaowega3839 And you don't see how a test which boils down all the infinite variety of humanity into 16 easily digestible stereotypes could somehow lead people to act like this?

@@hedgehog3180The 16 MBTI types are basically templates that are based on preferences; and of which can be clearly seen via via behavioural patterns.

This is so true. This right here is a copy of that actually f***ing did the research

+1

Isn't it a pretty goddamn big issue for anything claiming to be scientific that it has no predictive power? Like that should be the end of the discussion. Also are you claiming that you did not know what your family and friends were like before you classified them like this? That you didn't know how they would act and had no ability to predict their behaviors? Because if not then you didn't actually get anything valuable out of your analysis, you just formalized prior knowledge into some fancier language. Also I'd think that trying to diagnose someone without a proper test and their clear consent is a pretty serious case of malpractice but what do I know.

@@hedgehog3180 hm this one of the most stupidest points ever becuase where is it that mbti perduicts the future and shit and this so called prediction you say just seems like it comeds from biases maybe reasch before hand

​@hedgehog3180 While I agree with your first point, you should've stopped there. Your second paragraph as a whole is completely wrong and void. They never claimed that they didn't know how their family and friends acted before the classification, In fact they would have to have had a PRETTY GOOD understanding of them in order to type them without a test (using cognitive functions no less). Also, this isn't a virus. Personally, I don't see how typing someone based on the cognitive functions, along with your own observations is malpractice. But what do I know?

Nice comment. You so eloquently and cohesively summed up my sprawled afterthoughts after watching this video

@@ringstaystingray Glad to hear you enjoyed the comment! Though perhaps I could have figured out a way to be more concise xD Most people don't seem to realize how memetic the human psyche is in general either; from advertisements to verbal abuse at home or work, archetypes and impressions find ways into our psyche every day. I think the bottom line is that people don't think abstractions have use-cases but they do, take Liberals vs Conservatives for example. Demonstrably an abstraction, but it is one used all of the time by laymen and in geopolitical machinations. xD I appreciate the response and I am glad you found my comment insightful! 😎

"if someone frequently leans on how they feel about a subject and uses subjective opinion as a keystone in their statements; you observe "Introverted Feeling"" I feel like this is the perfect example for why something like the social-cognitive perspective is significantly more reasonable as a basis for concluding statements about patterns of behaviour. If someone leans more on subjective over objective reasoning for argumentation, isn't this more indicative of how they were raised and what they were exposed to (methodologies of concluding reason) and what was found to be more, on average, socially acceptable within their scope of social influence? If I'm raised by and taught to think more objectively and given tools to more cohesively and clearly subdivide my thought into buckets of testing which I then allow only the most objective of thoughts to be used in argumentation and dissemination of information through my ability to communicate, will I not then be organised differently? Another complicated matter ignored here is the fact that "softening your words to hurt another's feelings" for example, is a highly subjective over-generalised statement. The idea of reducing the emotional impact of your words for someone else is already something that can be shown as non-universal. Take for example the classic notion of a commonly used symbol (one displayed through a social interaction; such as a hand-sign or a collection of symbols such as a word or phrase), and extrapolate it through different cultures. You could argue that if one set of people are less offended by that symbol but another are more offended, then we cannot draw a strong conclusion about the individual who contributed to that response. It goes significantly deeper than that too, let's say we take the introverted and extroverted statements and view them through the lens of "comfort". How comfortable an individual feels with any set of people will indicate how easily they can communicate themselves with others. The spectrum shifts with context. It isn't just a bi-pole spectrum, it is a contextually-driven spectrum as well. It is also a consequence-driven spectrum, and a trained-response spectrum (think traumas, positive and negative schema, and so on). These over-simplified reductions of complex behaviour lead toward more often than not, reductions that over-deny the true complexity of these situations and behavioural outcomes in an attempt to assign, categorise, and box people into sets of more easily manageable and judge-able classes of label-based treatment.

@@joshuacadebarber8992 > “If someone leans more on subjective over objective reasoning for argumentation, isn't this more indicative of how they were raised and what they were exposed to (methodologies of concluding reason) and what was found to be more, on average, socially acceptable within their scope of social influence?” I didn’t quote the cause intentionally, because as far as typology goes… we don’t know the cause. It reads correlative patterns, but we don’t know what the ‘chicken’ or the ‘egg’ is (what comes first). Therefore, typology is classified as unscientific because it lacks enough quantitative study. It is not considered “unscientific” because it is baseless entirely, but because we don’t yet know if the “chicken” or “egg” comes first (or why that might be). But, I am not arguing for the scientific validity of typology (only it’s subjective usefulness), so in other words I am only arguing for it insofar as a tool for personal understanding and self-improvement; so I don’t feel as if your specific criticism in this case is relevant. It doesn’t seem to argue against a claim I made at all. > “Another complicated matter ignored here is the fact that ‘softening your words to hurt another's feelings’ for example, is a highly subjective over-generalized statement.” It is overgeneralized but it’s a post I specifically noted that I created for a layman’s level of understanding of Jung’s typology - and I will admit - it is not the most accurate description of Fe as a function a la Jung. However, I will say, that Fe’s usage depends on the user’s own subjective viewpoint; so, they would adjust their statements based on their own level of social awareness and comfortability. This would vary between cultures, but I don’t see why the function itself must be “omni-cultural” when it’s use is subjective to the user’s experience and therefore only viewed within the lens of one culture at a time (via that person’s own subjective viewpoint). Again, I am not arguing factual validity of causation, only the observable validity of correlation; so, a person will likely default to either being more considerate of others and people pleasing for the sake of their social harmony OR they will tend to speak their mind even if it is at the expense of others potentially misunderstanding them. These behaviors are situational, but also mutually exclusive, and someone will tend to do one more than the other in casual interaction. This difference can be observed and noted over time, and the resulting behavior of preferring one method or the other can be noted; but again the “why” is left up in the air. So thusly, scientific validity is still being tested and is unproven; but again, I am not arguing for Typology’s scientific validity, only its usefulness to individuals as a tool for personal development and it's subjective usefulness as an internally consistent framework of classification/observation. > On ‘Introversion vs. Extroversion” It depends on how you determine the definition of these things. Jung characterized introversion as "attitude-type characterized by orientation in life through subjective psychic contents" and extroversion as "an attitude-type characterized by concentration of interest on the external object”. People can obviously vary on this axis but throughout their lives are very likely to default into one category. Again, the “why” is not measured, and I never asserted it ever was. xD The man seeking enlightenment is seeking an internal goal (introverted goal), the man seeking wealth or influence is seeking an external goal (extroverted goal). > “These over-simplified reductions of complex behaviour lead toward more often than not, reductions that over-deny the true complexity of these situations and behavioural outcomes in an attempt to assign, categorise, and box people into sets of more easily manageable and judge-able classes of label-based treatment.” This statement of yours isn’t backed up by a logical assertion, and it doesn’t argue against a logical assertion I made; it’s just a demonstration of how you feel and why you felt the need to comment. And that observation isn’t to insult you, because you seem quite intelligent and I appreciate the feedback, but you’re fundamentally arguing against an assertion I didn’t make - and in fact - that I went out of my way to try to not make. Jung's typology is not scientific. I merely asserted I believe it has value despite it not being scientific. Jung’s Typology observes one’s patterns of thought, by observing someone’s patterns of action and their method of delineation. The exact issue that renders it “unscientific” is because, again, the origin of all “why’s” are multivariable and currently unfounded. It /can/ at times determine someone’s likely modes of being in a broad manner, by observing their behavior. It is not - and should not be treated as - a “be all end all” 100% accurate picture of someone’s personality; this is not possible with any personality test and is not my assertion. People who advocate for that viewpoint, are foolish in my opinion; as to my knowledge currently no such perfect personality evaluation system exists. > Footnote If I were to try to guess your personality type based on this one comment, I would say, INTJ. One comment usually is not enough to go off of however, and it typically would take cross-examination of many of your posts to get an entirely accurate picture. You show demonstrable usage of Te (facts-based and context-based thinking) and Ni (quick and decisive intuitive evaluation of context), your motivation(s) are driven via Ni evaluation/judgement and your trigger of motivation-to-action is through an Fi personal feelings-based axis. Assuming your evaluation of my post here is true to your usual/standard methods of analysis; then INTJ is very much likely. If I can determine this accurately from one comment, it may show a validity in the internal consistency of the system’s own usefulness to an extent. It is a measure of “preferred thought/reasoning patterns”, however, the “why” is the missing piece and you’re right about that. There are numerous possible genetic and environmental factors that may "make someone a type" and that is being studied currently. At the end of the day it is trying to abstract something as mind-bendingly complex as the human brain; for now, I think approximation is the best we can do as a society. But… I personally think Jung’s Typology has promise, at least as one tool of self-understanding amongst many. The issue is people taking it too seriously, and you are right about that as well. xD My ‘supposed’ type: INFJ

​@@gaving7825 Hey! I love the response. It's a huge surprise and a super welcome one. I'm INFP haha. I just prefer this style of communication for sharing opinions and discussing things related to more technical aspects of life. :) For the response itself and the points you bring up, I love the focus on a "tools" based approach. As a mostly pragmatic/utilitarian fan I agree that it has it's usefulness and perhaps less like astrology, exists in a class of more useful predictors and although it lacks a concrete, "this is how", it still has a "we can produce some degree of useful metrics with it". One point I'd like to quickly make a note about: > The man seeking enlightenment is seeking an internal goal (introverted goal), the man seeking wealth or influence is seeking an external goal (extroverted goal). I would like to add a little bit of nuance here, without knowing the reasons for the desire of enlightenment, we can't ascertain whether it's an introverted or extroverted goal. Both goals desire the same thing, "gaining N" where N is something innately correlated to their physical entity. Furthermore, gaining physical wealth vs enlightenment is an interesting abstraction to make. One's degree of enlightenment is also a "wealth" and can be exchanged just as anything else for "wealth". In order to attain "wealth" one might need to achieve a higher extent of "enlightenment". What is the true goal of one seeking enlightenment, and what is the true goal of one seeking wealth? One may require wealth and thus seek it in order to survive in order to achieve further degrees of enlightenment if death will occur sooner due to a lack of wealth. It seems the real point you are making here is whether their focus is on the internal sense of "psyche" vs the external sense of "physicality". Without going into any philosophies, hypotheses, or theories about the state of the mind, whether it's purely physical, metaphysical, both, or alternatively related, I think the postulation is blurred. For example, one might need to attain external things for internal things and vice versa. They are interlinked and impossible coupled. If neurons don't fire we can't see evidence for consciousness for example. So for one to think about "enlightenment", one must keep "the lights on". So external and internal experience an existential breakdown of the barrier erected to separate the two. Now, in the terms of outgoing behaviour, thrill-seeking behaviours, being inclined to entertain en-mass vs small degrees/groups/an individual directly, definitely using these barriers, and defining them as such can be a useful tool. And I'm all for approximation and possible predictors. My point was moreso a humbling point that we tend to over-use over-simplifications. That might be because they work well. That might be because path of least resistance. You're 100% right I just wanted to share my thoughts and I really enjoy doing it in a "critique" style! I never meant for my comments to specifically address or target what you meant by what you said, and moreso, fill in some holes I saw myself with my own opinion(s) and viewpoint(s). I find it fun to dream about and explore the landscape around the things people say, and perhaps that's the most INFP thing to do lol Btw my partner is INTJ ;)

Thanks Greg!

Shortly, you have 4 cognitive functions and all of them are extraverted or introverted. The difference is that you have all 4 funcions, 2 of them are introverted, 2 of them are extroverted and you have them in a order. Also you can get better in all of them, but you prefer using some of them more than others. - - - For example Feeling (values) or Thinking (logic) - Would you do it becouse it make sense or you dont because its not right and you should't. - - - also two people with same MBTI can be different, because it dont deffines opinions etc. More easily said, everyone has its own values or own logic, the MBTI defines which one they will preffer to use.

Exactly. I do think that MBTI can reflect our personality and how we think to an extent. However, it does not 100% define us who we are. We are all uniquely made. You might have an INFP who likes jumping off of cliffs into deep water for thrill and an ESTP who could write a novel alone in their room. Basically what you said

There's no way that a personality test can predict my mind, im basicly impossible for Mbti to get a type and the more I read the less sense it makes

True it's just a little part of our internal software

Yeah for example I’m an INTP that just means I was born with Ti-Ne-Si-Fe but that doesn’t mean I’m gonna hole myself in my room playing video games all day, I could love parties and going out with friends and being a leader and developing my lower functions

I agree entirely, and part of me actually thinks academia is a bit hard on the psychoanalysts. That claim was more of an observation than a part of my argument.

@@duncanclarke When schools talk about psychoanalysis, for some reason they only talk about Freud. Who everyone hates the ideas of nowadays. The approach has moved far away from him. Schools are just like "Here's Freud's ideas, haha laugh at them for a bit, now lets talk extensively about all the other approaches". So nobody wants to learn about or talk about psychoanalysis theories, especially not in a fair way. Also, people talk about psychoanalysis theories being "pseudoscience" then go and praise Maslow's hierarchy of needs although it's just as "unscientific" but it's not psychoanalysis so it's magically alright.

This is a very thoughtful and interesting comment to receive. It's hard to articulate how valuable I find these comments, and I really applaud how deeply you've engaged with the video. I appreciate your perspective with respect to the authoratative and "debunking" nature of the video. As I'm a small creator, I find myself searching for clickbait-y and controvertial takes to structure a video around. So naturally, I gravitate towards more shallow theses for my videos. I hope that the video itself did not come off as shallow as the title. I attempted to be as charitable as I could to MBTI while keeping the video reasonably brief. As you mentioned, I think it's important to recognize the obvious utility that MBTI has to people. But still, I think I attempted to put forward a purely practical case against MBTI. Despite the objectivity issues, I believe that most people who attach themselves to their MBTI type tend to fall into traps where they understand their personality as immovable and concrete "things", which dissuades them from personal growth and development. I think the Buddhist notion of "no self" contradicts this notion of immutable personality, and leads to a kind of liberation from that framework. I tend to agree with your analysis of Buddhism. I think the values and techniques that this philosophy provides is immensely useful. Even if I took a rigid "debunker" perspective, it's clear from objective studies that meditation rewires the brain and results in improved quality of life. However, I think philosophies and practices like Buddhism are much more valuable than things like astrology, which tend to be more limited in scope and result in more judgement towards other people. But still, I tried to be as charitable to astrology as I could, and described its utility to ancient civilizations. As I mentioned at the end of the video, I don't think it's fair to say that MBTI is unequivocally "bad" or "stupid". In fact, it can act as a catalyst for introspection (similarly with astrology). The thesis of the video is meant to show that one should simply take these systems with a grain of salt, as you mentioned. Once again, thanks a lot for this comment, my man. This depth of constructive criticism is hard to come by for a youtuber of my size, so I really appreciate it.

@@duncanclarke I think I will subscribe to you now. lmao

@@Jungslab1312 Thanks dude! I'm glad you're interested in what I'm making :)

This!! This comment is golden and is expertly expressed and shows what the fundamental issue is with the video. Even looking into the astrology section of the video and hearing how he talks about it shows that he doesn't have enough knowledge or experience to discredit it's use.

@@duncanclarke Astrology is not limited in scope. In fact, there is a lot of intricacies to astrology that you don't know about and would if you actually looked into it. Astrology is just as valuable as Buddhism and I don't think the practice of astrology itself should be blamed for the natural inclination of people to stereotype, limit, compartmentalize and criticize others. Please investigate more before having certain claims.

I’m gonna be that person who *kind of* defends mbti- do you believe you ARE open, friendly, and empathetic? Mbti isn’t perfect, but if you have these traits it doesn’t mean it’s entirely bullshit like astrology, just slightly bullshit.

You’re so lucky, I’m hoping to do something like this in the future once I take more psych classes 😅. I’m taking ap psych as of now. Mbti is cool and it’s interesting how it managed to describe me pretty well

People in the mbti comnunity only like 16p for their cute characters lmao

Well that's because the former is all descriptive/prescriptive mindwandering, a good starting point at best, pure babble at worst. The latter is based on an independently verifiable process with falsifiable claims and modeling.

Yeah, because it’s really just the online test. It’s just ruin everything you know

@@marcomoreno6748 I can’t keep doing this, but it’s like you don’t really social claims

I think that is key to why MBTI is so popular, because it is much more self defined. Most people quickly recognize that astrology is incredibly arbitrary, being simply based on the time of year you were born. MBTI might produce equally unreliable results but is at least less arbitrary and gives the illusion of being based on some knowledge about you. MBTI in that way becomes something you can self identify with, especially since if you don't like your result you can just retry and get one that's better for you. In many ways it's the same as sports teams, what teams people cheer for is often completely random but the important thing is that they did decide for themselves who to cheer for and identify with, and most people are completely aware and even purposefully choose arbitrarily. I mean I literally did that with Rocket League and I still somehow got invested in it and had fun.

@hedgehog3180 that compasrison really is sjut being stupid frankly again its biases whoch shouldn't be in scine

Thanks man!

Same!!!

idk how did u manage to say MTBI instead of MBTI in your whole comment

@ArtyCharty (by Jack Merlin Bruce) I completely agree with all of your points, I made a comment getting into a bit of the nitty gritty of it myself, MBTI and Jungian Psychology is certainly measuring .... er, "something" (via cognitive functions) and possibly a whole lot of somethings. It is also relatively stable as you mentioned. I see all kinda of people comparing MBTI to the Barnum Effect and I'm not confident most people actually know what the Barnum Effect does and doesn't pertain to, since I think the comparison is quite inaccurate overall. It is unscientific in the sense it's an unsolvable "chicken and the egg" problem, and we only see correlation without any actual causation being proven. We don't know what factors make people an "INTJ", "ENFP", etc. But there are measurable differences in people's behaviors and thought patterns when they are grouped this way, and it's shockingly stable assuming they are correctly typed. Videos like this are startlingly reductionist, honestly. I agree it's unsafe to use these types to stereotype people and it can only be taken as a rough measurement at best, but it's far from useless or mystical from what I understand.

@@wrongin8992 The same way you managed to be a grammar policeman. By writing a comment. B)

@@gaving7825 grammar policeman? it was not an insult to his grammar, i was just curious how did he manage to say MTBI instead of MBTI in his whole comment, like if its only once then i can assume that its a typo, but throughout the whole comment? im just kinda curious whether he thinks that it is actually MTBI instead of MBTI

Thanks dude! I think that's something everyone deals with to some extent, and things like MBTI or astrology just exacerbate it.

Yeah, I tend to agree with a lot of your points here. It's clear that Jung had a very sophisticated analysis of personality. But as you said, the problem is how 99% of people interpret the buzzfeed-esque 16 personality quiz results. I hope the perspective I communicated in the actual video was more nuanced.

Dr. Liz Greene has written a number of books relating astrology to Jung's typology. Jung believed in astrology.

@@barnowl. This is from Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious: "Even today, people who still believe in astrology fall almost without exception for t he old superstitious assumption of the influence of the stars. And yet anyone who can calculate a horoscope should know that, since the days of Hipparchus of Alexandria, the spring-point has been fixed at 0 degrees Aries, and that the zodiac on which every horoscope is based is therefore quite arbitrary, the spring-point having gradually advanced, since then, into the first degrees of Pisces, owning to the precession of the equinoxes." "'The stars of thine own fate lie in thy breast', says Seni to Wallenstein -- a dictum that should satisfy all astrologers if we know even a little about the secrets of the heart." I think he saw it more as a symbolic influence but not necessarily something real or purely scientific. Just something that can influence people just like any other form of spirituality or religion.

Also, if someone of one type reads the personality of someone of the opposite type(opposite side of the spectrum in all 4 categories), they will not at all think it applies to their life. If you read the description of a type that varies in more than 1 category it very clearly doesn't fit very well. You could pick 100 random questions about personality, group the answers into categories(via clustering or even literally just playing by ear), you'll end up with different personality groups - because people who answer questions about their personality the same way are likely to have the same personality. It's just a matter of which features(e.g the 4 Jung chose - which he admitted he could've chosen any other of dozens of traits, but thought that these 4 would be most efficient at grouping people in a way that would be useful for a persons analyst to know) you choose to group them based on.

last comment.. The reason results will change over time(according to Jung) is because - as he claims - the core personality is fixed, but different traits may be repressed or suppressed and others inflated for various reasons(usually related to complexes). A person undergoing psychoanalysis(or individuating or "becoming themself" as they age, which is a natural process) would be expected to undergo certain changes in personality over time. A common example is the intuitive function being suppressed in favor of sensing in a person who over-values empiricism and develops a belief that all is just bs left over from evolution that is no longer useful in the modern day

Because it's fluid, and does change over time, relatively stable because isn't a drastic change, but it does

@@retzen2989 Yeah, the makers of MBTI thought people were born with the types they have now, but still.

Is there a KZfaq video you could recommend that charitably describes the descriptive and explanatory power of Jung? And shows what Jung pointed out that was ostensibly true? I say this as someone who’s not convinced by what I’ve seen of Jung, but it drawn in by the conviction of your statements

@@ToriKo_ Not sure such a youtube video exists, but there's an interview with Jung where he walks through several stories between intuition and sensing: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rMtlg86XypvdaKs.html The way you might run this experiment is to identify two groups, one of intuitive and one of sensing. You would then expect the more intuitive people to be able to spot patterns or make predictions of what will be but more likely to miss what is in plain sight, whereas you would expect the more sensory people to spot what is right in front of them but less likely to spot patterns or tell what is going to happen next.

@@ToriKo_ kzfaq.info/get/bejne/eZuTqK6os7DNhac.html

if astrology gave specific answers about personality instead of general stuff, most of the times it would be wrong, but there would be, a tiny proportion of the time where, well, it would be right cause like, theres 7 billion people on earth, theres gotta be someone who was born on may who is very introverted and brave or idk, you get the idea, well, here, astrollogy would actually be, correct partially, so if you agree with me that in this hipothetical scenario these things would happen, then you absolutelly have to admit that it being partially true says nothing about a sistem on how reliable it is, if the system isnt made out of something logical, yes, theres some logic in young and MBTI, but its not enough for it to be something we should use or think seriouslly about, its logic that works here, but is broken here, no matter how good some systems in a factory are, if one of them is absolute garbage, the factory doesnt work, if one part of the system is funametally broken, the system as a whole is broken, if we assume that 2 = 1, no matter how much we follow the other axioms of math, we wont get to right results, in that sence it is similar to astrology, and again, that doesnt make it 100% terrible, it just makes it unreliable to the point where we really need to stop using it to think about personalities

God are you suggesting that Psychiatry has had some huge foundational issues of poor scientific rigor and generally unfounded assumptions? Wow what a shock I wonder if such a fundamental defect could lead to a replicability crisis that could cause sweeping fundamental changes in the field and lead it to come to the realization that it needs to entirely overhaul itself? It is almost as if psychiatry spent the majority of its history as a coercive tool of power to impose a hegemonic view of human neurotypes onto society which propped up exploitative systems and caused wide scale suffering as a direct result of its pseudo-scientific basis. Almost as if the field has only recently reformed and started actually helping patients more than it harms them and it continues to be plagued by its earlier mistakes, I wonder if anyone has ever written anything about this, maybe in a book called "Protest Schizophrenia" or something. Like jesus christ you absolute fucking cretin. If Economy didn't exist then Psychology would be the one stuck with the label of the "Dismal Science", the field has consistently performed poorly and this is in large parts because of its pseudo-scientific roots that it has struggled to weed out and psychologists continue to act like more philosopher than scientist without realizing the limits of philosophy. All of your arguments apply to fucking Miasma theory, please do a tiny bit of thinking. Thankfully Psychology is reforming and has gotten better but that was because of people who looked at quacks like Jung and Freud and went "this is fucking stupid and unscientific and is harming real people". In no other fucking field of science would "you can't dismiss this theory just because it has no predictive power because it occasionally gets something slightly right" be an acceptable reason for adopting a theory. You'd be laughed out of any respectable journal with that kind of attitude, and you wouldn't be able to graduate with a physics, chemistry, biology, medicine or sociology degree with it. Have you ever heard of a p-value? Do you even know anything about statistics and probabilities? Do you even know what a normal distribution is? Do you know how to integrate one?

So true and you know these people really source their claims and windy these Internet people do it’s like it’s really not it’s actually stealing and that’s not good

MBTI - actually not "Using your personality to determine your personality, and breaking it down into groups. Basically taking your wall of personality and breaking it to the bricks that form it, then organising these bricks." More so: using a fundamentally flawed system that gets things right more because of chance (as in, the chances that the person that is taking the test is the kind that is usually represented more rightlly than others) and then saying it describes you, yeah, its not astrollogy, but both have fundamental problems that make it not good to use since in MBTI you cant know if you are the kind of person that is more prone to have acurate results before you take the test

@@marmolejomartinezjoseemili9043 Most people in MBTI communities disagree with taking tests. They can be a decent starting point, but most people encourage learning about the functions and self-reflection. This is what I get frustrated with when trying to discuss about MBTI and its accuracy. Most of the critique of MBTI come from people looking in not understanding the theory and how it's used. And the people who do actually know about the theory as they've studied it and are likely to be in these online communities don't want to talk about the idea that MBTI might have any flaws whatsoever. But I will say, yes --- the system is very much flawed, in the way that it puts the personalities into distinct groups. When you actually look at the functions and have studied MBTI long enough, you realise that often you can really relate to some aspects of a function but not relate to other aspects at all. For example, you could say that Extroverted Feeling is made up of multiple characteristics --- empathy, social extroversion, social skills, charisma and interest of group ethics (just from the top of my head, probably even more). What if you relate a lot to empathy and interest in group ethics, but not to the other three? In addition to this, people's personalities can change. Well, people deep into the theory say that this is simply because we pretend to be types, and pretend to be skilled at characteristics, that we're naturally not, and you should try to find the type which is most natural to you. However, I do believe that, with certain situations and practice, you can change quite a lot. Whether or not your new type is _actually_ your type is debated, fair enough. But I think this needs to be considered when it comes to people trying to type others, at least. If you think someone behaves like an ISTJ continuously, chances are, that's not their natural type. The whole "changing type" situation also means we need to reflect on stereotypes and how they're complete bs --- which they obviously are anyway. The flaws are simply not what most people are saying --- because those "flaws" are things which only exist for beginner typologists who believe taking loads of random tests is easier than going to the source and studying. Most people in typology spaces HATE 16personalities. Also, even if you believe the system is flawed (which it is), that doesn't mean what I said was wrong. It's still a system which attempts to take aspects of your personality, break it into chunks, then place you in a group. Saying whether it's flawed or not doesn't change that.

Well your mistake is in assuming that science is objective. It is not and has never claimed to be, it is just as subjective as anything else. Science is just a method that lets us sort through all of our collective subjective experience and then come up with the best theory for explaining why something happens and predicting what will happen in the future. The brilliance of science is not that it can discover capital T truth, it is that it is able to methodically narrow in on the most accurate and useful way to understand something and use that understanding to gain useful knowledge about the world, such as predicting future events or understanding what action you should take in a certain situation. Objectivity is impossible due to the simple fact that we are all subjectively experiencing the world, the fact that we are subjects, individuals experiencing the world, makes it impossible for us to never not be subjective. What is in layman's terms called objectivity is often more like "consensus reality". Though I do sorta get your point but the argument you're making, seemingly unknowingly, is that MBTI is like literary analysis. Not a tool for discovering or discerning truth but a model you can choose to apply because you might be able to find what you consider a useful or interesting insight from it. If you purely use it like that then that is fine, but you then need to remember that just like literary analysis you are not discovering a static unchanging truth, you're merely choosing a lens. There is no correct interpretation of a piece of literature, only ones that are more well supported by textual evidence. Also not all models used in literary analysis are always equally valid, it wouldn't make sense to analyze a novel by looking at rhymes, so you should also recognize that sometimes MBTI is not fit for purpose in many situations. I do not follow your explanation of how MBTI is supposed to work. You don't define what any of the variables used are nor what the - notation means, and you clearly don't use it as a minus sign. At best it seems like a roundabout way of saying "your perception of other people will be colored by your own personality", which is true but I don't see why that's an insight that matters? Did we need personality tests to understand a commonly understood facet of life?

Honestly, I love reading all that. I'm an INFJ. I have always been struggling to know where I am in a social situation, somehow I don't even know if I know myself well and after finding out my MBTI, I feel like I now have at least a little grasp of what might happen to me all this time. I'm well aware this is pseudoscience. But this has helped me at make things make sense for me. And I do love trying to guess people's MBTI as a hobby lol. But I don't think we are limited to the traits our MBTIs have. But overall, it had helped me gain friends and have fun talks with people who shares the same interest. Also researching about it is pretty fun and not to mention the skits I've seen online LOL.

Well said

@@loocydity6119 I dug way more in the subject: it's freaking solid. First, psychology can never be science, or only in a really generalist. Because it would be hoping all people will always act logically to fit the theory. That's just sounds wrong; there are way too much parameters... Yet our brains are wired in a way or another, and has to prioritize things, how to look, judge... That's CPT. I found put the perfect KZfaq channel, simply called "Cognitive Personality Theory". That guy will just explain you everything about your - maybe - Ni Fe Ti Se. I tried to find an intuitive way of formulating the loops in a nutshell: By instinct, INFJ is an active Visionary-Analyst and passive Harmonizer-Practical, so, insight->reason & empathy->senses. (that mean way more than it says but I forgot the details lol) You may worry about novelty/exploration, criticize identity/values, find memory/stability cursed and struggle to even figure out structuring/process/results. (hard to find a single accurate word) Of course, it's from basis, before outgrowth. Does that work? For my Ti-Ne-Si-Fe/Te-Ni-Se-Fi it works so well it's scary. I prefer to isolate the cognitive functions to really understand their priorities and interactions, in order to be even more accurate than that most tests. Because it's not about who we are, but how our instinct leans. The best remains a true specialist, who I think CPT channel is. (I think he said he's INFJ too, but would type ESFJ differently because of how much he worked on his Te or something like that) Also I think the rule number one with MBTI is to never trust what we think we understood. I tried to apply this on fictional characters, like on Personality-Database, reddit... My hopes of understanding has been crushed a few times already, after I've been convinced by very argumented analysis, saying literally opposite things. (... By the way, do you find Nico Robin relatable ? xD ) Generally, we have no idea how much wrong things are said across the internet, hence the almost astrology-tier opinions. But it's still science-based because of how close it is to the Big Five, the statistics, the brain imagery... Science is not about truth, it's about questioning, failing, and perpetually improving the imperfect. We'll always be biased, but we can at least aknowledge it, it's all about point of view. (Astrology is shit, yet someone born in january will have way more chance to become an athlete, because of all his childhood experiences having this big physical advantage of a few extra month)

​@@loocydity6119 ... I did not send a link but did my second novel have just been deleted ? :'(

@@loocydity6119 I'm a bit pissed off so I can barely write anymore lol. You can directly watch CPT about INFJ, and his theory explanation playlist to really understand all the terms. I also liked how he addressed flawed opinions on MBTI (from both sides).

Oh? I'd like to see this. Do you have any links by any chance?

Im INTJ too!

So? So are other millions of people around the world. Based on this test you should have millions of copies around the world. But you don't. You're one of the kind Dividing all of the humanity in 16 types is pseudoscience

@laniakeas92 Every type is on a spectrum. It just means that we center around particular personality traits.

I don't think I have ever gotten the same result twice, even when taking the test mere hours apart.

My condolences

Honestly my results changed often and varied a lot when i took the test. It definitely limited who you were. However these tests are silly and just for fun as I see it, not a hard on this is you picture. We took a test like this in my Psychology class during highschool and we used 3 different websites. All had different results. It was a fun assignment but not a reliable one is what we learned.

Yes, I have to agree with you here 💯. Duncan is brilliant when it comes to his interpretations of philosophy, but certainly has not done so with the MBTI. The MBTI and the Big Five model are very consistent with each other, but certainly not the free online 16 Personalities test in which he frequently sites.

Woah, I just watched more parts of this video and I just realized you and I are on the same page, you just are not interested in MBTI enough to see its hidden Big Five lol

That's an interesting perspective, and it seems like a totally legitimate way of approaching personality. The main problem I have with MBTI (after browsing several MBTI forums) is that it seems like most people don't see it that way. The general attitude seems to be that they see their classification as something imposed onto them, rather than a personal assessment of their attitude. I think recognizing the capacity to change that attitude over time is also key. A lot of people in the community seem to see their MBTI type as a permanent set of characteristics (analogous to astrology).

i agree with this wholeheartedly. i think mbti does more good than bad, it clearly shows it. now that the youth online are given the tools to do self-assessment and find out more about themselves and others through 'personality categorizing'. i don't see a problem with pseudo-science if it's helping everyone overall.

What has led you to this conclusion?

@bionetik learning about behavioral genetics and thinking about my own life and those around me made me have this conclusion.

@@bionetik btw cool music

@@bionetik For example let's say you're at high risk for alcoholism. You have a lot of genes coded for it,one sip and you can't get enough. You may think what's wrong with yourself and try to find a reason. "Oh I grew up with an alcoholic mom, that's why I drink" but imagine you're put in a tribe that doesn't know alcohol. Your mom and you would still have the same genes, but you wouldn't act on it because there's no alcohol around.

Thanks dude!

Oh, and you can’t even saw Sean cling onto that come back to me when you do that then maybe you’re not garbage