• barsoap@lemm.ee
        11·
        10 months ago

        I’ll just leave my comment from further down in the thread here for you two:

        I don’t like MBTI either, they’ve had a hundred years of opportunity to do science but never used it. They’re a business selling coaching re-investing into marketing, not science. I’m merely using their abbreviations because they became a lingua franca.

        MBTI being bunk doesn’t mean that Jung didn’t spot something real, though, even if he proved nothing and could only describe it fuzzily (he didn’t even describe 16 types, but eight, based on primary cognitive function. In that rough model ISTPs and INTPs are one and the same which we definitely aren’t). The whole of Psychological types is basically saying “hey guys there’s something here we should have a look at it”. Chapter 10 is the interesting one, the rest is… philology? It’s the best proof he could muster back then give the man a break that was 100 years ago.

        On the scientific front the best the typology community has right now is Juan E Sandoval’s stuff, the pilot studies are quite promising but there’s more theorycrafting to be done before applying for grants for properly-sized studies to then throw at the scientific establishment saying “prove us wrong”.

        In case of tl;dw: Consider embodied cognition, and following from that that cognitive operations are expressed outwardly by various gestures, suchlike, CT calls the lot of it vultology. Then make a taxonomy of markers, analyse a lot of video marking those things and throw statistics at the data, what you get out of that is bimodal distributions, showing that there’s actual differences between people (that is, unlike Big5 axis which don’t have bimodal distributions). Make a twin study, observe that twins share vultological clusters, strongly suggesting that those clusters are innate. Flank by psychological questionaries establishing correlations between the vultological clusters and self-reported cognition.

        You can say that you’re sceptical but if you say that that’s not doing science then I don’t know what to tell you, either.

        • Barbarian@sh.itjust.works
          9·
          10 months ago

          You can say that you’re sceptical but if you say that that’s not doing science then I don’t know what to tell you, either.

          Isn’t skepticism the bedrock of science? The scientific method (heavily simplified) requires a hypothesis, predictions based on that hypothesis, and then testing of those predictions. I don’t see any predictive power in the MBTI matrix, which means it’s unfalsifiable. This is different than your twins example, where you can predict certain characteristics of the results.

          • barsoap@lemm.ee
            4·
            10 months ago

            Psychology and predictive power are two things you should never use in the same sentence if you don’t want to give psychologists an existential crisis. The mind is a chaotic system (as in chaos theory), to draw a parallel to physics the best psychology can do is say “this double pendulum will only swing within a certain radius”: True, no doubt, but also somewhat unsatisfactory.

            None of this will ever be “You’re an ESTP therefore I predict you will be a base jumper”. I mean if you look at base jumpers there’s a fuckton of ESTPs there but even more of them are bus drivers or something completely random. Predicting, in this context, is more of the statistical kind. More like predicting someone’s sex by their height, with the additional twist that we have to prove the existence of different sexes by there being a bimodal distribution in height.

            Both CT and MBTI share the same root in Jungian function theory but they use different definitions, the CT ones are very precise, example: Sensing. MBTI as well as other systems have a very, very hard time actually agreeing on what type someone is, to a large degree I’d say those imprecise definitions are the cause. Even “vibe-typing” based on CT definitions and vultology will have more cross-examiner agreement than going with the formal MBTI tests.

            But that doesn’t mean that those definitions are miles apart – as you see in the Sensing example, they do have some correspondence. Which means that while the type matrix between the two isn’t identical, it’s also not completely different. As such CT holding up to scrutiny would also mean MBTI holding up to scrutiny to the degree that it doesn’t stray from CT too much.

            Which is pretty much all just to say that comparing MBTI to astrology is kinda off-base. MBTI might be problematic in a hell a lot of ways but it’s also not claiming that Mercury being in retrograde at the moment of your birth has any impact on you, that’s just plain aphysical, MBTI makes no such claims. MBTI might be, as formulated, unfalsifiable, whereas astrology is right-out disproven.

          • PunnyName@lemmy.world
            2·
            10 months ago

            Depends on the individual definition of skepticism.

            Some people say, “hmm, I’m skeptical”, and then do nothing after. That’s not science. That’s denial.

            Some people say, “hmm, I’m skeptical”, and then go look into stuff about that thing to make sure that the data they find confirmation or denies the thing they’re skeptical about. That’s science (the very very very beginning).

      • Banda@lemmy.world
        5·
        10 months ago

        I was thinking nbd charge a dollar cover fee and rent a venue or something.

        Then I realized there isn’t even a stadium in the world large enough to host 1.5 million people. You’d have more friends than people that gather for a royal wedding. It’s an absolutely absurd amount of people.

  • Annoyed_🦀 @monyet.cc
    51·
    10 months ago

    1.5millions friend seems so hard to keep up and will soon drift away from everyone, leaving just a handful.

    1.5million dollars tqvm.

    • kameecoding@lemmy.world
      6·
      10 months ago

      You fool,

      Choose 1.5 million friends, borrow 20 bucks from everyone, they are all glad they lost their friendship with you and it only cost them 20bucks, you get 30 million.

  • niktemadur@lemmy.world
    22·
    10 months ago

    Get one point five million friends to give you a dollar each. No biggie on their part, a buck’s just a buck and they’re your friends, after all.

  • reflex@kbin.social
    17·
    10 months ago

    Are we talking close, Band of Brothers-style friends? Or mere Facebook friends. Because the latter are about as gud as one-ply toilet paper.

  • kameecoding@lemmy.world
    16·
    10 months ago

    Bruh, easily the 1.5 million friends, you can ask each for more than a dollar and never pay them back, so you lose the friends too, win win.

    Id borrow a hundred from each and enjoy my 150 million

    • Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world
      14·
      10 months ago

      You don’t think 1 friend will put that on social media that you’re asking, and your plan immediately falls apart?

      Now 1.5 million people think you’re a gold digger

  • Gork@lemm.ee
    13·
    10 months ago

    If you succeed in building an empire you can have both 1.5 million friends/subjects and $1.5 million from the war booty.

    And booty, of course.

  • andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works
    5·
    10 months ago

    1.5 mil. dollars easily.

    Even in my best times I can’t handle that much people or even remember them.

    I’m INTP.

    What’s your type?

    I guess Lemmy is filled with NT\NF types even more than Reddit.

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      5·
      10 months ago

      The FLOSS community is full of ITs (no pun intended) regardless of N so no, probably not. Let me see. In a software company:

      • ISTJs are the guys dressing like civil engineers. They’re generally busy quietly doing work – especially maintenance, for which everyone would be thankful if they knew maintenance is being done. They generally keep out of banter but occasionally drop an absolute nuke, upon which people remember that they exist.
      • INTJs are easy to spot: They’re the ones wearing all black in an attempt to not draw attention to themselves. Yes you heard it here facts don’t care about your intentions.
      • INTPs look somewhat lost (as usual). Most common position within the team is mathematical oracle.
      • ISTPs like me make sure that you nerds aren’t feeling sorry for yourselves. We mostly do that passively: Other introverts think we’re extroverts and therefore cool.

      Then, bonus introverts:

      • ISFP is a very capable coder as long as it’s graphics or sound programming. Indispensable at every game studio, also excellent UX/UI devs. Like ISTP, often gets confused for an extrovert because of all that pazazz.
      • INFPs do exist. Kind of elusive how that works but e.g. Linus Thorvalds is one.
      • INFJs would be capable, but just aren’t interested, they rather become teachers. You may be able to obtain one by promising TED talk opportunities.
      • ISFJ is not actually a programmer but feels very included doing the payroll and making sure there’s enough coffee in the pantry. And making sure INTP eats something else but buttered noodles once in a while.
        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          4·
          10 months ago

          I don’t like MBTI either, they’ve had a hundred years of opportunity to do science but never used it. They’re a business selling coaching re-investing into marketing, not science. I’m merely using their abbreviations because they became a lingua franca.

          MBTI being bunk doesn’t mean that Jung didn’t spot something real, though, even if he proved nothing and could only describe it fuzzily (he didn’t even describe 16 types, but eight, based on primary cognitive function. In that rough model ISTPs and INTPs are one and the same which we definitely aren’t). The whole of Psychological types is basically saying “hey guys there’s something here we should have a look at it”. Chapter 10 is the interesting one, the rest is… philology? It’s the best proof he could muster back then give the man a break that was 100 years ago.

          On the scientific front the best the typology community has right now is Juan E Sandoval’s stuff, the pilot studies are quite promising but there’s more theorycrafting to be done before applying for grants for properly-sized studies to then throw at the scientific establishment saying “prove us wrong”.

          In case of tl;dw: Consider embodied cognition, and following from that that cognitive operations are expressed outwardly by various gestures, suchlike, CT calls the lot of it vultology. Then make a taxonomy of markers, analyse a lot of video marking those things and throw statistics at the data, what you get out of that is bimodal distributions, showing that there’s actual differences between people (that is, unlike Big5 axis which don’t have bimodal distributions). Make a twin study, observe that twins share vultological clusters, strongly suggesting that those clusters are innate. Flank by psychological questionaries establishing correlations between the vultological clusters and self-reported cognition.

          You can say that you’re sceptical but if you say that that’s not doing science then I don’t know what to tell you, either.

          • andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works
            1·
            10 months ago

            Ironically, the best thing done to MBTI in the later years is 16personalities test. It’s crude, it’s stupid, but it did promote the idea and had this well-designed avatars, so it brought many people on the path of self-discovery.

            But making it a science? Everyone was more occupied by selling it, than researching it.

            There’re also Socionics, an exUSSR bastard that rewire many things in MBTI, and is too focused on the idea of pairing types: https://mysocio.ru/ I find it a little deeper but more cringe.

            • barsoap@lemm.ee
              3·
              10 months ago

              16personalities is Big5 dressed up in MBTI terminology – yes Big5 has a good methodology, but it doesn’t even try to measure the stuff that Jung was getting at, if you get an “I” on 16personalities that means you rank low on Big5 sociability which just isn’t what introversion is. Big5, more or less, can tell you how other people, society in general see you as. You probably know that you’re sociable or not, Big5 can give you a very precise place on the bell curve, and you may or may not know whether you’re neurotic, which can be very helpful. But it just doesn’t have anything to do with cognition, and Big5 results very much aren’t innate, which Jungian types are supposed to be.

              Overall, each time I see a type ending in -T or -A I automatically assume the thing to be a mistype. From my experience it’s quite a bit worse than chance.

              The avatars are cute though and the wider typing community has adopted them wholesale.