• charlytune@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        1 year ago

        That doesn’t stop an absolute fuck ton of people believing in it. One of my friends is quite deeply into it, she’s in FB groups about it, and decides what everyone’s type is upon meeting them. According to her I only think it’s nonsense because I’ve only done the free online tests, not the proper one. She wouldn’t listen the other day when I tried to put her right about flouride in the water, either.

        • kshade@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sounds like the test itself isn’t the problem but how it’s used and how much people attach to the results, like with IQ tests. Neither that nor Myers-Briggs should be part of interviewing for a job either but apparently some US companies do it anyway.

    • recarsion@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It shouldn’t be taken as scientific truth but it can help you know yourself and others better, and it’s an insult to compare it to astrology because at least it’s not based on completely random things like the position of the planets when you were born. The issue is that most people only know MBTI as online tests, which are self-report and have extremely vague and stereotypical questions that can very easily be manipulated to get whatever result you want, with the worst offender being the most popular one, 16personalities, which isn’t even an actual MBTI test but a BIg 5 one (which is not to say Big 5 is bad, but it’s very misleading to map it to MBTI types). In reality to use MBTI somewhat effectively is going to take studying Carl Jung’s work, how MBTI builds on that, lots of introspection, asking people about yourself, and lots of doubting and double checking your thinking. And very importantly you have to accept that in the end this all isn’t real and just a way to conceptualize different aspects of our personalities and it’s in no way predictive, you have to let go of stereotypes, anyone can act in any way, it’s just about tendencies.

    • Captain Poofter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      I used to think this, but I think the new posh astrology is mental disorders in general. It costs thousands of dollars to get professionally assessed, whereas MBTI is a free quiz online. Crippling anxiety, depression, OCD, panic attacks, etc., are the new ENFP

        • Captain Poofter@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          So you don’t think a rich person can use their money to shop around for sketchy psychologists? You don’t think it’s possible that Munchausen syndrome (something science has proved exists) could be becoming more common? Why did you even state things that are scientifically provable are valid? Duh. Things that aren’t scientifically disproven are also invalid, in case anyone else wanted another useless reminder to up vote.

          • jeremyparker@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You seem very upset about this. I doubt this will help since it doesn’t seem like your reasoning is influenced by logic, but, the fact that there are fraudulent doctors and diagnoses doesn’t mean science isn’t real.

      • TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        People treat diagnoses in irresponsible ways. You’re not all wrong here. I could say more but I’m sick as fuck so I’m just gonna stop here and dangle the potential of decent conversation

        • Captain Poofter@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Thanks for not immediately jumping on my back about it and down voting. I’m certainly not saying that there’s no scientific validity to mental disorders, that’s absurd and definitely not the take I have and I feel like taking that impression from my original comment is almost willingly misunderstanding what I was trying to say.

          • AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            What are you saying if not that ADA recognized disabilities are no more significant to a person than a possibly made-up personality type?

            • TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I think what they’re getting at is that just because the ADA or whoever recognizes that the disorders exist doesn’t mean that everyone who believes they have it has it.

      • ElTacoEsMiPastor@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s just substituting one set of acronyms to another. In a way, people find community in it. Whether they enrich one another or bathe in misery is a distinct conversation.