Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.

Teybo

Members
  • Content count

    4,526
  • Joined

  • Last visited

3 Followers

About Teybo

  • Rank
    Veteran Member

Personality

  • MBTI
    INFJ
  • Global 5/SLOAN
    IvtOpnAgrConNeu

Converted

  • Gender
  1. Hackles are way, way down. Apparently having an opinion and being consistent about it is bad. Noted.
  2. All I am trying to do is give helpful information to someone asking questions about their type. I'm not asking you to debate me. Hell, you don't even have to read my posts or the material I linked to. That's your choice, just as it's your choice to get weirdly defensive/aggressive toward me. I pointed out that clarity is that-a-way. Do what you will with it. Maybe also calm down a bit.
  3. This doesn't have anything to do with I vs E. If you believe that it does because of "the functions", I suggest you consider abandoning the functions. They are, empirically speaking, a failed theory. You can read more about the "category mistake" of cognitive functions here.
  4. Your answers point to Introvert.
  5. Do you get worn out by social gatherings, or fired up by social gatherings? At a social gathering, do you usually introduce people to each other, or do other people usually introduce you to others? Do you usually need more time alone or are you usually bored by time alone? Do you usually listen more or talk more?
  6. While the neuorlogic bases for various observed personality phenomena are only just beginning to be explored, and it would be hasty to say that we have a biologic explanation of personality, what my post was about was not about how to explain personality via biology, but about how well models and theories of personality match up with what we can reliably observe about personality and behavior. Furthermore, I strongly disagree with your claim that dimension (what you call "dichotomy") models somehow gain in "predictability" (what do you mean exactly?) by sacrificing specificity. That's really not true. Dimension-based models make specific judgments and delineations about how personality systematically varies in humans, and from the individual dimensions one can build rich pictures of personality. In contrast, function talk is both less accurate AND less precise, where accuracy is about relation to reality and precision is about consistency in description. It's pretty much an internet-forum "common wisdom" that functions are the "heart" of MBTI, where all the interesting stuff lives, but I would argue the opposite: function talk promotes laziness in thought and interpretation; function talk - due to its vagueness and inconsistencies - invites people to construct "just so" stories such that mutually contradictory stories can be constructed from the same data point; and, not to put too fine a point on it, but whatever science may tell is in the future about how the psychology of personality is organized, it is important to acknowledge what it has already told us, and it has already told us with a great deal of confidence that the cognitive function theory is most likely wrong. The bottom line is that for anyone who is interested in typing themselves, it's just not worth wading into the smelly swamp of function talk. We know it's confusing - not even the experts can agree on what's what. We know it's so vague that people can argue the contradictory theories from the same starting point. We know with great confidence that it's wrong. Why bother with it? So much the better for someone learning about personality psychology to start with a system with more scientific validity, more clarity, and more richness, namely, the 4 relatively-independent MBTI dimensions: I/E, N/S, F/T, and P/J.
  7. Your statement that dichotomies and functions "are merely ways of representing brain biology" is only true in the sense that functions and tiny gremlins pulling levers inside your skull are also ways of "representing" brain biology, but it side steps the question of whether or not it matters that your "representation" is accurate (as far as science can currently tell). Functions are a metaphor that time and time again science has shown to be misleading and inaccurate. If you care about representing the psychology of personality with accuracy, then you should prefer explanations and models based on relatively independent dimensions ("latent variables") rather than explanations with no support like the tiny-gremlins theory or cognitive functions.
  8. I agree that you would be a bit of an anomaly in STEM if you were ISFP. It's absolutely not impossible for ISFPs to pursue STEM degrees. There are countless ISFP mathematicians, biologists, so on. However, it's unlikely in terms of expected probability for ISFPs to pursue STEM degrees, and when you find youself in a situation where you are both a) uncertain of your MBTI type and b) finding areas of "poor fit" or mismatches between what's typical for you and what's typical of your currently-considered type. If you want to get a better handle on your type, I suggest that you ignore cognitive functions completely and instead focus on the 4 "dichotomies" or dimensions: I vs E, N vs S, F vs T, and P vs J. Why am I saying you should ignore the cognitive functions? A few reasons: 1. They are subjective and confusing. Even so-called type experts -- people who write books on MBTI, lead workshops, counsel people in finding their type, and so on -- cannot reach a consensus about what attributes distinguish one cognitive function from another. For example, there is substantial confusion even among experts about what is representative of introverted feeling and what is representative of extraverted feeling. Perhaps then it's no surprise that there is an even bigger body of misinformed, inaccurate, and plainly contradictory writing about the functions found online - at blogs and at personality type forums. When people lack a clear, evidence-based theory of type, two people can argue that the same data point is indicative of opposite things. Speaking of evidence-based theory of type... 2. An overwhelmingly large body of evidence indicates that the cognitive functions are a mistake. For more on this, I recommend reading this post by forum-veteran reckful. The post not only does a laudable job of spelling out why cognitive function-based analyses (what I call "function talk") often lead to confusion in type-me exercises, it also describes fairly well how scientific evidence collected by personality psychologists shows pretty conclusively that interpreting the MBTI as four relatively-independent dimensions is much more scientifically valid (i.e., matches reality better) than interpreting the MBTI as complex interactions of dimensions. In short, I'd recommend forgetting that you'd ever heard of Ni or Fe or anything like that and go back to what is simple and simply true about the MBTI. As starting points, I suggest the Open Extended Jungian Type Scales or this used-by-scientists Big 5 inventory. If you choose to complete one or both of those inventories, I recommend posting your full results to the thread (i.e., results that give a dimension-by-dimension break down) in order to help stimulate conversation about specific areas of uncertainty or confusion. TL;DR: Forget the functions and function-talk. Focus on the dichotomies.
  9. Literally I gave you a general definition of bias and asked you to start fleshing things out. If you can't start there, you don't got much, do you? All that bluster and certainty you showed before somehow fizzles. This thread will wait for whenever in the future you feel the need to spout blustery stuff about bias.
  10. You're talking about a specific instance or instances of bias, not a general concept of bias. Bias is a systematic deviation from an expected result. Before you can talk about systematic deviation, you need to establish what the expected result is. Start whatever thread you want in philosophy, but unless and until you can respond to the ideas here, you're out of luck making a specific case.
  11. For there to be bias, there must first be a criterion.
  12. Any moment now, I'm sure @Kisai will explain his position.
  13. Budgets used to be covered more by funds from the state. As state governments have slashed funding for higher education, tuition rates have risen. Simultaneously, administration positions at state universities have ballooned, partly in response to the need for universities to hire people to solicit donations from benefactors so as to cover the state's funding shortfall.
  14. Can't wait to see what you post in the other thread!
  15. Here you go. Kisai, you said it would be prudent to move this discussion to another thread, so I'm sure you'll be eager to move this discussion to a new thread I created for that express purpose, and we can let QuickTwist's thread be for QuickTwist.