Conversation

Replying to

and

Most folks have only ever taken online tests, which are crap, and based on random interpretations of the actual MBTI. Even the official test that you pay to get done, in person, from the MBTI folks, is pretty inaccurate. So almost no one is typed accurately.

Replying to

and

This is more evidence for what I'm saying.

Replying to

and

I'm not sure what you mean. The categories of the MBTI are very useful, but only if you actually are using them, and not looking at some random "fake news" silliness. I suggest the original book Gifts Differing, if you really want to learn about it.

Replying to

and

If a 200 question-aire gets you pseudoscience, so does 3 anecdotes and an armchair psychologist.

Replying to

and

Mbti has limitations, but is great if you actually know how it works and don't do pop tests online. I'm INTP, very strongly.

Replying to

and

So he guessed wrong...

Replying to

and

Also, I'm not guessing. I'm categorizing based on over a decade of work in this field. Personality types are a large part of my research. Here is a breakdown of the MBTI as it relates to the DSM:

Replying to

and

The polarities boil down to risk-aversion/input-needs focus vs. novelty-seeking/output-needs in 4 basic evolutionary brain regions: motor cortex, limbic system, neocortex, and prefrontal cortex. Which are, respectively, physical, emotional, intellectual, and philosophical.

Replying to

and

If this was in Jung's original design (the brain thing) then that's news to me, do you have a link to his writing on that? Did they even know about brain regions like that at the time?

Replying to

and

This isn't Jung. This is specifically the MBTI, which was an update of Jung's stuff. And I've updated the MBTI to include modern neurology, psychology, and developmental theories from everyone I could find. (Ken Wilbur, Spiral Dynamics, Maslow, Elizabet Satouris, me, etc.)