/lit/ - Literature

My boyfriend who tested INFJ sends me a million INFP memes a day since I tested INFP and I am very tired of it

>>16390985
get an ENTJ bf

>>16390973
>Is MBTI a good way to understand personality?
lol no of course it fucking isn't

there will never be a simple model of personality that is "a good way to understand personality"

>>16393582
>there will never be a simple model of personality
What is humorism

>>16390973
No. Go back.

No, big 5 is better. Or even just Jung's original theory in Psychological Types

Mbti is the joke of the psychometrics, no competent psychologist will ever tell you that the Myers Briggs is in any way a reliable test of personality and it's overall just the astrology of edgy atheists

>>16392208
that would be suicide

>>16390973
MBTI is too powerful. Stay away. You won't be able to unsee.

>INTJ

>>16394609
lol

>>16394592
That's simply because it isn't fully understood, and such a rough outline would have to be correlated to actually neuronal relationships, which will not be likely, due to funding. Also, most psychologists are idiots, and MBTI is more complex than even most "experts" in the system realize.

MBTI is worth less than astrology and is made by woman
The temperaments are a tested and true model created by greek scholars

>>16394635
>Also, most psychologists are idiots, and MBTI is more complex than even most "experts" in the system realize.
Can you elaborate on this? What's a complexity in MBTI you commonly see misunderstood?

After four years spending time studying jungian functions and MBTI, I still don't understand what the fuck the system is. Everyone on the fucking internet has a different definition for every function, so everything ends up being meaningless.

>>16390973
MBTI threads are common on /r9k/, that should tell you all you need to know
>>16394592
Psychometrics is a joke desu.
>what if we measured validity by how racist and sexist the consequences of this questionnaire will be
>what if we ignore some of the basic assumptioms of statistical analysis because psychological testing can't possibly meet them

>>16393586
>>16394642
Based and black-bile pilled

I suppose first we must define what we mean by "understand". I take it you mean some sort of deep understanding, not just the superficial knowledge that most people have. We could then ask ourselves whether MBTI can explain personality types in a way that is more scientific than astrology or crystal healing.
I suppose the next question to address is whether it is worth understanding personality types in a scientific way. This could be hotly debated, but I will take my own stance on this.
I believe that it is worth understanding personality types scientifically. I think this because I think that scientific thinking is the best way to understand how science works and why we can trust scientific results, despite the fallibility of humans. Scientific thinking helps us to understand many concepts in psychology such as intelligence, happiness, morality or mental health.
I believe that people would be more willing to trust psychological research if it was conducted using scientific methods such as experiments, and not just the armchair musings of psychologists. I also think that using a system like MBTI is better than no personality type system at all.
I would now like to address the claim that MBTI is unscientific. We have already established that we are talking about a scientific understanding of personality types, so I think it is important to ask ourselves what exactly differentiates scientific and un-scientific thinking.
I think we have to distinguish between scientific and non-scientific reasoning. I believe that science is the best way to do this, because it has a special set of principles that guide how it works.

>>16390973
Skip straight to Jung.

>>16395129
That's why you read Jung and disregard the rest.

>>16394635
I never read the foundational work for MBTI, but I thought it was a classification system of behaviors and preferences. There may be complexity in balancing out what combination of attributes determine if someone is an introvert or not. It's a framework to carry around to make better judgements of people. All of the "pseudoscience" things, like enneagrams and Maslows hierarchy of needs are hopelessly flawed models. No single snapshot of a person is ever going to be perfect or even approximately accurate in predicting behavior. Drawing connections between an action and its source remains to be plain good judgement.

>>16395252
But I read Jung.
https://www.jungiananalysts.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/C.-G.-Jung-Collected-Works-Volume-6_-Psychological-Types.pdf
Skip to the parts where he explains the functions and tell me honestly if you're able to identify to any one description. I personally can't. Jung's wording is very symbolic and intuitive, which is usually what makes him so interesting to read, but in this particular case it's counterproductive.

>>16395273
I've read the last part of the book where he describes each function. I think his descriptions are pretty clear. Which part specifically do you have trouble understanding? Are you familiar with the rest of his psychology?

>>16395288
>I think his descriptions are pretty clear.
In a vacuum, but I find them very difficult to apply concretely to individuals.
It's my understanding that Jung defines extraversion as a tendency of the subject to focus on the object, and introversion a tendency to focus on the subjective experience but a disregard for the objective reality that is being perceived. Am I in the ballpark? There doesn't seem to be a social implication to the I/E dichotomy (none of the "introverts like to be alone, extraverts like people" simplifications that most people use to define the terms)
When it comes to the actual functions though, I'm having trouble.
I understand Jung's words, but I'm completely unable to apply them to my own cognition and behavior, or other people's behaviors.
I can kind of guess how ES, EF, ET would manifest; ES is about just sensing things in the present, it's basically innervation. EF is the adoption of the group or situation's values/"mood" as one's own; ET is an adherence to what is perceived as objectively factual, such as benchmarks and guidelines.
The rest of the functions are very opaque because I don't see how they manifest concretely, and I have a hard time separating them in the first place. Jung uses words such as "symbols", "images", "inner objects", "impressions"... But these words have a broad scope and their meaning in the context of Psychological Types is not very well-defined. What am I supposed to understand when Jung refers to an "image"? A literal image, i.e. an inner representation of some kind of fantasy, the work of imagination? Or is it meant in a more abstract sense and refers to a pure idea?
I get the feeling that the way the functions are described only serves to muddle what they refer to practically speaking. I have a lot of trouble distinguishing introverted intuition from introverted sensation and introverted feeling because of this. Introverted functions pertain to inner representations of the objective world. Instead of focusing on how the world appears to be, introverts focus on how the world is represented inside of themselves. This alone is confusing, because there is no such thing as objective perception devoid of subjective interpretation (and Jung himself admits this in the beginning of the chapter I was talking about in my previous post.)
From there, how do we differentiate feeling, intuition, sensation and thinking? Jung says that sensation and intuition are opposites, so IS and IN should be opposing processes. IS apparently takes the objective world and projects it inside oneself to perceive it. This is vague (and it seems to me everyone does that to varying extents) but I can somewhat intuitively grasp it. But then what does intuition do? It skips over sensory facts to perceive underlying impressions, but what does that imply? Where do you draw the line between sensory perceptions and underlying impressions?
>Are you familiar with the rest of his psychology?
Just slightly. I only read MAHS.

bump

>>16395368
Yeah, I agree that he is talking in a extremely abstract sense, but he isn't really being obscure. Most of it could be figured out, though many of it relate to other parts of his psychology. For example, regarding your point about introversion/extroversion, can't we reason straightforwardly, that from "introverts have a tendency to focus on the subjective" it follows that "introverts would tend to prefer to spend time alone"? It's just applying the general rule to particular instances.
He has a "Definitions" section at the end of the book, where he meticulously defines each concept in depth, sometimes even in more than a few pages:
>51. SYMBOL. The concept of a symbol should in my view be strictlydistinguished from that of a sign. Symbolic and semiotic meanings areentirely different things. In his book on symbolism, Ferrero82 does notspeak of symbols in the strict sense, but of signs. For instance, the oldcustom of handing over a piece of turf at the sale of a plot of land might bedescribed as “symbolic” in the vulgar sense of the word, but actually it ispurely semiotic in character...
>26. IMAGE. When I speak of “image” in this book, I do not mean thepsychic reflection of an external object, but a concept derived from poeticusage, namely, a figure of fancy or fantasy-image, which is related onlyindirectly to the perception of an external object....
>...The subject, conceived as the “inner object,” is the unconscious. Just asthere is a relation to the outer object, an outer attitude, there is a relation tothe inner object, an inner attitude. ...

Regarding the difference between IF, and IS and IN, he makes a big distinction that the latter two are irrational functions (in the sense that they passively perceive) while the former is a rational function (in the sense that it makes decisions; F reasons based on feelings, T reasons based on logic, but both are judging or decision making functions).

>>16395368
cont.
The intuition function heavily relates to other parts of his psychology. It is a sort of access to the collective unconscious, so it can "perceive" or know things without physically perceiving or knowing them at all. For example, EN is seen very frequently in successful investors and entrepreneurs. They have seemingly baseless hunches about the objective world that is often times successful, though even they themselves don't know how. IN is seen mostly in artists, poets, prophets, etc. They have access to archetypes, or psychological truths. For example, if someone with IN and someone with ES watch a romantic movie, the latter is looking at those two specific lovers and how their tale unfolds, but for the intuitive the movie evokes a "feeling-tone" or archetype and he is mostly focused on this archetypal perception; the two specific lovers are irrelevant to him compared to his archetypal perception of the union of the Anima and Animus. The sensor could not even conceive of this archetypal perception at all, while the intuitive thinks the perception of the sensor is too short-sighted. This is what he means when he says intuition and sensation are the opposites.

But all things considered, I agree that his abstract style could be very confusing. It's in someways like reading the "mathematics of the psyche". It would help to always try to see what he means in specific cases. Since he is a systematic thinker, a familiarity with other parts of his system is also very helpful.

>>16395884
>>16395890
I'm a dumbass, I hadn't even noticed the definitions section. I should reread the chapter, then.

>can't we reason straightforwardly,
In that particular case, yes, I agree.
>>I do not mean the psychic reflection of an external object
See, that's what I'm referring to when I say the definitions muddle what they refer to. It's not that the way Jung defines images is particularly hard to understand, but due to the immaterial nature of cognition (which is so difficult to properly pin down compared to objective phenomena), the definition seems very broadly applicable.

An "image" is an inner impression provoked by an external object. But do cognitive functions operate in such discrete ways that introverted sensation would be entirely closed off from the production of such impressions? Conversely, does introverted intuition only ever produce those impressions, never relating them consciously to the object from which they originated?

Jung uses the term "fantasy-image". Fantasy generally refers to the act of imagining possibilities that are clearly cut off from objective reality. What does that say about IS? Is it incapable of cutting itself off from objective reality despite it being defined as the very opposite of a realistic process (paraphrasing Jung, IS pretty much projects a purely subjective, sometimes delusional image of the world into the mind.) How is that possible?

Similarly, if IN does not concern itself with the object but with the pure "image" that arises from it, how is it related to imagination? Wouldn't it be akin to a thinking function? It seems to me that the act of imagining is always done with the help of a sensory "backbone" to substantiate the fantasy. Imagination in a vacuum, entirely separate from the senses, is just pure thought.
How do archetypes arise from such a process, then, being the sublimation of a specific motif throughout history in the form of an intuitively familiar symbol? They can never be pure concepts, or they would neither be collective, nor archetypal.

Cont.

>>16395884
>>16395890
Cont.

I understand the examples you gave. I get that the ES user perceives the action of the film and that the IN user perceives the symbolic themes that are woven through the scenario.
But it seems to me that those two things can't truly be separated. The symbolic union of the Anima and Animus are meaningless if they aren't accompanied by specific images (in the conventional sense) or other sensory cues to give them "life".
I like swimming pools because they evoke an impression of serene stillness, there's an archaic mystery to them. From the image of the pool and what it evokes to my senses (the wetness, the smell, the shape and color, the sounds the water makes), I arrive at a symbol that has nothing to do with stagnant water in itself: serenity, mystery timelessness. These are symbols that can be hard to express but are very easily understood intuitively. Can they be separated from the object that gave rise to them?
Am I mistaken, and they're in fact not symbols but emotions?

Maybe I'm missing the point entirely, sorry if that's the case. I'll definitely look into Jung's other works and see if it makes things clearer.

bump

>>16396130
>>16396139
I'm afraid I can't help you with the discussion of IS, since I didn't spend much time reading about it. But as for the archetypes, as I said this is a vast and central concept of his psychology, and to make the matters more confusing, the concept has gone over several stages of development over the course of Jung's career. I can just talk a little bit about what I understood. Archetypes are a sort of mental contents or "images" prior too all experience. They are not removed from experience, but they are the things that make experience meaningful. Though they are a sort of feeling, they are a sort of especial "feeling-tone" that give the sensory experience their meaning. I'm not sure the pool example is particularly archetypal, since while there is a sense of calmness in an empty swimming pool, I think much of it could be attributed to the insulated and empty atmosphere, not that the pool itself is archetypally potent. To consider one of the more prominent archetypes, consider the archetype of the Woman. There is an innate structure (or organ) in the mind that when I see a particular woman, she gets immediately related to this Woman (the archetype) and a feeling-tone is evoked in my mind that gives my perception of the woman (the person) the meaning it has. But to contrast, when I look at my table for example, I don't particularly sense a feeling-tone. The table simply doesn't have much psychological significance.
The case with intuitives isn't that they can't have sensory perception (that would be ridiculous), but that they don't give it much significance, they aren't focused on it. Similarly it's not that sensors too are unaffected by the archetypes, but archetypes for them functions in the background. whereas intuitives are hyper-aware of them.

>>16396768
>when I look at my table for example, I don't particularly sense a feeling-tone
Why?
Your example of the Woman gave me a distinct impression of the Forms.
If the "feeling-tone" gives meaning to sensory experience, why does it not give meaning to the entirety of what we perceive?
You mention psychological significance, but is there an actual criterion that makes an object relatable to an overarching archetype? What makes something psychologically significant?
Doesn't the claim that something is psychologically insignificant because of how it appears in the phenomenal world amount to a kind of reductionism that puts our psychological representations in a subordinate role to their objective appearances?

>>16396877
I think you are conflating Jungian archetypes with Platonic ones, which, while similar, are crucially different. Those sort of Platonic archetypes give shape to the structure of the phenomena (according to the theory), which is different from these psychological archetypes that give shape to our psychic apprehension of the phenomena. In a sense, these are the psychological equivalent of Platonic archetypes. In the same book you posted, he says:
>These archetypes, whose innermost nature is inaccessible to experience, are the precipitate of the psychic functioning of the whole ancestral line; the accumulated experiences of organic life in general, a million times repeated, and condensed into types. In these archetypes, therefore, all experiences are represented which have happened on this planet since primeval times. The more frequent and the more intense they were, the more clearly focused they become in the archetype.
So to answer your question, the Woman is a psychologically potent archetype because our ancestors had intense interactions with women that left their mark on the collective unconscious. On the other hand, neither my interaction with the table nor that of my ancestors have not been that intense. But if we were to accept metaphysical Platonism, yes the table would have gotten its shape from the Table.

>>16397038
Would it be accurate to say that archetypes are then an offshoot of Platonic forms produced by the human experience throughout history?
Has anything ever been written that compares the two and tries to link them together or bring the specifics of their relationship to light?
Anyway, I think I understand the concept better, thank you.

>>16397078
>Would it be accurate to say that archetypes are then an offshoot of Platonic forms produced by the human experience throughout history?
Jung confines himself to psychology, but I think it is more the case that metaphysical archetypes manifest themselves both in the subjective psychological realm, and the objective concrete realm, and these human experiences make some of these psychic archetypes more pronounced and distinguished than the others in the unconscious, similar as to how there are many things in the objective world that we care more about than the others. I'm not aware of any book that were written after Jung that makes metaphysical sense of him, but I've found that his psychological Platonism lines up very nicely with Schopenhauer's metaphysical Platonism, which isn't surprising considering Jung was highly influenced by him.

>>16390985
Cuck him, that's what INFJs are for, you're a INFP already so

>>16390973
>babbys first personality test
>CIAs comprehensive test

Lit is not ready for it
https://www.pasf.org/pasq/index.htm

>>16398090
>a literal psyop where every result shits on you from start to finish and says nothing of actual substance, basically just calling you names
Great test you got there

>>16398108
I just took it lol, no it dosen't

>>16398253
Actually it does

>>16398269
You're too used to tests that just ego stroke about how unique and talented you are. This test is one of the more objective and well-balanced I've seen when considering tendencies, developmental factors, etc.

>>16398280
Not at all, keep projecting
>objective and well-balanced
top kek, it was 100% inaccurate for me as in the description has literally nothing to do with any of my thought processes or behaviors. Worse than MBTI if such a thing is even possible
Glow harder

>>16390973
I don’t like because it completely discounts culture. Despite what people tell you about each individual being unique, there is also that monolithic culture in play.

Plus it has shown people get different results on different day.

Human psychology is a funny thing. It’s complex in some ways yet not complex in other ways at the same time

>>16398297
Not him but can you post some of the negative things it said?

>>16398297
You don't seem that self-aware so I'm not surprised.

>>16398315
Of course retard, I'm sure you've managed to get an accurate picture of my personality and self-awareness from the couple of shitposts we exchanged. Your test is garbage and you're quite obviously a pompous and self-important faggot who wants to feel special by shilling his literal glownigger psyop on every board. Fuck off
>>16398313
I didn't save the results, it was basically nonsensical word salad with the word "schizoid" mentioned at least a dozen times in every paragraph. The rest was assumptions about my upbringing/development that were so painfully inaccurate I wondered if the algorithm had fucked up and given me an unrelated result.
Absolutely worthless

>>16398090
>implying a self-administered personality test can ever be accurate
Even putting aside the grammatical mistakes on that website, this is as midwit-tier as all other tests.

>>16398361
I h-hope so

>>16398365
Any self-administered personality test is unreliable. Looking at the questions on its website, this one doesn't seem to be an exception, especially given the ambiguous wording of some questions and the lack of breadth in the possible answers.

>>16398414
>especially given the ambiguous wording of some questions and the lack of breadth in the possible answers.

>>16390973
Putting the adjective after the noun is more artistic.

>>16398477
>resorting to wojakposting when he's outed as a dumb shill
Go advertize your garbage elsewhere.

>>16398525
>falling for obvious bait
Lad...

>>16398564
>I was merely pretending
Pal...

>>16390973
Entp's rise up.

>>16398713
What did you get here, bro?
>>16398090

>>16398789
Not him, but I got IFU. Seems accurate enough.

I use the cognitive functions system and the 3 enneagram systems (the wing system,the tritype system and instinctual variant system)
works great for me desu

>>16390973
Myers-Briggs types were literally made up by two bored housewives in their kitchen who had skimmed a bit of Jung

>>16398090
>e*f*u
>basically a highly functional autist
Thanks CIA

>>16398090
>taking CIA's personal data collecting test
I thought I'd never sink this cringe.

>>16390985
>this is the reality of being a feeler
This is the first time I have felt good about being a retarded robot.

>>16398789
I've done the first test, wtf do I do when it asking me to fill in all the multiple choice questions with random letters?

>>16398789
>>16399408
Nigger what do I do? This happened last time.

>>16398789
Similar to this anon>>16398831

Except IFA.

>>16398713
>>16398789
>>16399466
>Of the two [IF] adjustments the [IFA] baby is likely to attract the most initial attention. There is a kind of "doll baby" quality to the [IFA] infant. He demands little attention, yet is responsive to care and attention due to his social adaptability. When left alone, he is capable of amusing himself. He is very curious about himself, and most parents find this initial curiosity "cute" and tend to encourage it without recognizing the essentially narcissistic quality of the curiosity.
>It is not too strange, then, that many of the most actively masculine and self-sufficient individuals in all the patterns will occur in the [IFA] male group.
>He is also the type most likely to have imaginary playmates, not because he is lonely, but because they offer no resistance to the free rein of his imagination. Fantasy in all of its forms is easily provoked and easily maintained in the [IFA] individual.
>The [IFA], because of his role sensitivity, may become an extremely misleading person. His sensitivity, capacity for empathy and apparent social-interpersonal warmth may be highly effective. However, beneath this facade, he may be an egocentric and narcissistic individual. On the other hand, given firm training and guidance, he also may become the most creative, imaginative and socially effective of any of the Primitive Types. [IFA] s are particularly effective working in programs where the aim is to benefit the greatest number. It is not unusual for the [IFA] to become extremely interested and creative in mass endeavors like socialism, communism, economic theory, social welfare and political action. However, they are particularly prone to look for ways to elevate or improve the common good or common competence. They are inclined to become very disillusioned at lack of drive, lack of enthusiasm, or lack of competence in individuals. Since, as [I] individuals, they often lack real compassion, they can be extremely unfeeling or objective in the way they punish and destroy what they see as bad or non-productive. Certain types of militant zealots and fanatics may appear in this group.
>The [IFA] is not so much a reformer as he is an implementer. He usually identifies strongly with and is very loyal to the aims, methods, principles and practices with which he identifies. He is more inclined to want to do things better than to want to do them differently. In this sense, he is more a dedicated evolutionist than a revolutionist. However, his tendency to be critical, to seek innovations, and to place proficiency above tradition or compassion is likely to make him the object of considerable distrust, dislike and concern on the part of more conventional, imitative and authority-bound individuals.


VIVA LA REVOLUTION!

>>16398713
>>16398789
>>16399466
>Of the two [IF] adjustments the [IFA] baby is likely to attract the most initial attention. There is a kind of "doll baby" quality to the [IFA] infant. He demands little attention, yet is responsive to care and attention due to his social adaptability. When left alone, he is capable of amusing himself. He is very curious about himself, and most parents find this initial curiosity "cute" and tend to encourage it without recognizing the essentially narcissistic quality of the curiosity.
>It is not too strange, then, that many of the most actively masculine and self-sufficient individuals in all the patterns will occur in the [IFA] male group.
>He is also the type most likely to have imaginary playmates, not because he is lonely, but because they offer no resistance to the free rein of his imagination. Fantasy in all of its forms is easily provoked and easily maintained in the [IFA] individual.
>The [IFA], because of his role sensitivity, may become an extremely misleading person. His sensitivity, capacity for empathy and apparent social-interpersonal warmth may be highly effective. However, beneath this facade, he may be an egocentric and narcissistic individual. On the other hand, given firm training and guidance, he also may become the most creative, imaginative and socially effective of any of the Primitive Types. [IFA] s are particularly effective working in programs where the aim is to benefit the greatest number. It is not unusual for the [IFA] to become extremely interested and creative in mass endeavors like socialism, communism, economic theory, social welfare and political action. However, they are particularly prone to look for ways to elevate or improve the common good or common competence. They are inclined to become very disillusioned at lack of drive, lack of enthusiasm, or lack of competence in individuals. Since, as [I] individuals, they often lack real compassion, they can be extremely unfeeling or objective in the way they punish and destroy what they see as bad or non-productive. Certain types of militant zealots and fanatics may appear in this group.
>The [IFA] is not so much a reformer as he is an implementer. He usually identifies strongly with and is very loyal to the aims, methods, principles and practices with which he identifies. He is more inclined to want to do things better than to want to do them differently. In this sense, he is more a dedicated evolutionist than a revolutionist. However, his tendency to be critical, to seek innovations, and to place proficiency above tradition or compassion is likely to make him the object of considerable distrust, dislike and concern on the part of more conventional, imitative and authority-bound individuals.


VIVA LA REVOLUTION COMRADES!

>>16399579
>Ic Fu Ac

>>16399579
lmao that's why I like you frog

>>16399663
UwU.

>>16390973
It's a meme.

>>16398831
>>16399466
Did you do the second part?