Colour may be a useful analogy. We have the 7 colours of the rainbow. Some cultures may use the same word for green and blue and have less colours to describe the rainbow. We can say a primary colour is red, orange, yellow, green, blue, violet or indigo. Or we can use the wavelength. We have words for secondary colours, but one can also describe the wavelengths of the light of a colour, or use RGB, CMYK or some proprietary system. We also have warm colours, cool colours, complementary colours etc. All of these exist and are used by people in everyday life, in personal and professional communications. They all have their places, their uses and their limitations. If there is "only one" way to talk about colours, the world would be a less colourful place.
I feel you are correct, which allot of times, INTJs usually are. I see the importance of both, and both should be used and respected. I always love the perspectives of INTJs, you guys think in a very similar fashion to me, being you Ni dom counterpart of course.
I think academia uses dimensional measures mainly so they can run correlations and regression analyses. Technically, you need two continuous variables (as opposed to discrete variables) to run a correlation. For example, if they want to figure out the correlation of E/I dimension with intelligence, they need a continuous variable for E/I. Can't really do it with types, because the various types don't fit onto a continuum. You can do other types of stats tests, but it's not as clean (or accepted) as regression analysis. Sorry if you mentioned this and I missed it. Like the channel by the way. Good stuff.
Can you do a video where you explain the ENTP villain stereotype just like INTJS, ENTPS are the second most likely characters to be villains especially psychopathic villains why is it, even some ENFP villains act this way why are the ENTP usually psychopaths in the stories.
Ps in MBTI I test as an INTJ (and yes the step 2) as this is how my dichotomies fall: I'm slightly more introverted (indeed most people cluster in the middle), i definitely prefer T over F despite being a divergent ENFJ in CPT (in CPT my TiNi is higher in conscious magnitude than FeSe), im slightly more J over P and I'm heavily N over S. Jung didn't actually refer to E & I as it's employed in the big 5 but rather how we take in information primarily: whether proactively or reactively. I'm actually more proactive but this is due to being a divergent subtype. If we deep dive into the cognitive functions however I clearly don't favour NiFi & SeTe over TiNi & FeSe. I think the pitfalls of mbti lie in that many people do not fully understand for example, that INTJs are primarily Ni-Fi convergents (they primarily have an internal existentialist & expansive internal limbic world), they are NOT primarily a thinking type therefore despite SeTe being the backbone of their cognition as this occupies the divergent position. I think people prefer dichotomies as it's somehow 'superior' to state you're a thinking type for example when the reality is we all think & feel it's just contingent upon the perceiving function the codec is attached to. I'm glad in CPT there's parity of esteem between all the types as within the MBTI community there's this perception that some types are better than others, leading people to mistype, which simply isn't the case. MBTI also seeks to straddle cognition & behaviour when the two aren't synonymous; I prefer a purely cognitive model. Simply put MBTI is too simplistic & isn't reflective of the complex cognition of each individual leading the vast majority of people to mistype; you'll witness this when you go on any MBTI forum especially the so called intuitive types and more specifically INFJs & INTJs. The irony is in the MBTI step II an ENFJ in CPT IS MORE INTIMATE owing to the specificity of their FeSe; I'm sure many ESFJs & ESFPs mistype as ENFJs when we're actually the most socially introverted of the extroverted types, perhaps even more so than a lot of cognitive introverts. Again FeNe (ESFJ) is expansive whereas FeSe is simply a proclivity towards social nuance & is specific & discerning. So, the DSM, MBTI etc might be efficient but does it have validity & reliability? Not necessarily, especially with regards MBTI (please see my below comment first). Ps I'm a mental health prof as well as a postgrad psychology student. MBTI is heavily influenced by the big 5 for example in CPT an ISFJ would be open to experience it's just the way they go about this - SiTi (incremental logical induction) is going to be different to an INFJ. No wander no one wants to be typed as a sensor! Please check out Cognitive Personality Theory which is a nuanced, fluid model of typology via RU-vid & the accompanying ebook 😊. I don't know why but my other comment has disappeared.
I’ve never liked the MBTI and similar assessments. They’ve never seemed nuanced enough to me to be accurate. There’s a lot of situations where my inclination/behavior/reaction depends heavily on where I am, who I am with, and my overall current stress level. But the category type assessments pigeonhole me into something that’s like ill fitting clothes.
A valid perspective and a concern many have which is why many researchers are adopting dimensional approaches as well. I think if you are an individual with a higher level of variability in your test scores you are likely to feel less drawn towards categorical models as they have a higher chance to produce measurement errors.
once one understands Jung's ideas and all the implications of the mbti functions, one can see enough nuances in there to last a lifetime, so to speak. An assumption that you will behave and react in predictable ways always regardless of the situations and other variables you mentioned --- is a rather narrow understanding of Jung/mbti, like not seeing the forest for the trees.
I like taking these tests for fun and I very often get ENFJ instead of INFJ (my type) because I'm an ambivert and people even mistake me for an extrovert because I talk very much and am expressive. But I equally need to use my Fe with people and then retreat to a more introverted state, too much of either is not good for me, I need the balance. And this reflects in my test "statistics". That's why tests are very faulty because only based on the factor of introversion vs. extroversion it gives you a totally different type with a completely different order of functions in the stack or entirely different functions - but to the untrained eye only one "letter" is different.
It is also important to remember that the function stack isn't measured by the actual MBTI assessment which only offers validation and reliability for the dichotomies. As a psychology enthusiast with a Jungian bend myself I have to keep that in mind when discussing the Briggs assessment. The letter dichotomies were a compromise to attempt to find a middle ground between Jungian type and measurable personality.
@@AsuraPsych That's a good thing to remember and consider. And yes, the letters are a compromise, also the terms "intuition", "feeling" etc. that take on a different meaning when talking about cognitive functions as opposed to using these words outside of the system.
