> I would argue that if you can't test a given theory, then what you have isn't a theory, but a belief.
most psychology is like this
> The Wikipedia article I cited actually states that self-reporting is to be taken more seriously than the test results.
currently doctors look at pictures to determine if a patient has cancer or some other condition. why can't the computer do that instead? neural networks are used for this sometimes, but it remains that the subject is not so easy to capture with a pixel-wise algorithm. hence, why is it strange that a point-by-point questionnaire is inadequate to ascertain someone's type?
> As far as the theory itself, the original "Please Understand Me" book is filled with wild extrapolations from anecdata and borderline mystical thinking.
the original theory isn't Kiersey's or Myers-Briggs'. it's Jung's. he didn't think of it as a "put me in a box" type of thing. that was how Myers-Briggs sold it. also Kiersey originally used four general archetypes, which he did not notice until later corresponded nicely with NT (rational) / NF (idealist) / SJ (guardian) / SP (artisan)
invention/reinvention of these types occurs often. i remember finding a book published in Einstein's time titled something like "on the two types of intelligence in mathematical discoveries." Jung's theory may not have even existed at that point, but the book was clearly talking about Ni/Ne (by extension, mostly INTJ/INTP)
another reinvention is the programming characters Mort, Elvis, and Einstein. Elvis = INTJ, Einstein = INTP, Mort = probably ISTJ
and again, a lot of psychology is hand-wavy. you're not going to be able to prove any of these things any time soon. that doesn't mean they aren't sound. take a look at those forums i linked, and tell me if you think there is no difference between them, especially no difference having precisely to do with their types
> This is precisely why this kind of pigeonholing is so maddeningly counterproductive.
indeed, it can suck, and some people use typology defensively and offensively, which is certainly counterproductive
> "Clicking" has just as much to do with personal goals as it does personality similarities, no matter how (mis)measured. What if one is aware that there are benefits to meeting with minds that have perspectives different from one's own? Perhaps that person would most "click" with people wildly differently than his/herself.
try it. tell me if you find someone whose second letter isn't the same and you click with them. i guarantee you you won't. i don't mean that in an assholish dismissing sort of way, but the S-N axis is by far the most "categorizing"
it's almost like speaking a completely different language. you could flip every other letter and keep that axis the same, and you will be able to understand eachother easily. but flip just that letter and you're at eachother's throats
is this a generalization? despite the fact that my best friend doesn't share my letter on that axis; no, it isn't. it's 800% proven fact, and will be the case in 800% -- maybe up to as high as 1200% -- of situations. even videogame characters, and the letters S and N themselves, hate eachother due to this rigid dichotomy
> It would appear that this is at least in conflict with the idea that clicking is determined (at least partially) by compatibility on a personality axis. At most, this is an absolute refutation of MB personality theory in that it denies it any predictive power. What's the point of having the categories if you can always plead out of them when the evidence is uncomfortable?
could you think of them as boxes? yes. but they aren't boxes in the way most people would think. genaralizations is more accurate, and gets across what i was trying to say -- you may be introverted, but that doesn't mean you can't go hit corners in your lo-lo wit da gangstaz whilst spewin out madd lyrics, or lead a country as president, etc. in fact interesting things happen when you put types in places they wouldn't normally be. you could think of it as a mutation effect that in some cases is very beneficial
Feynman (ENTP) is a great example. most scientists are INTJ/INTP, but science was lucky and grateful to have Feynman as a member
your type is you, but what you do with you is up to you :)