Not in any traditional sense. The cognitive functions cannot be measured definitively, and I doubt any controlled study could prove that the mind organizes this way (functions working in a polar fashion, alternating between extroverted and introverted, etc.) MBTI is subjective. I'm sure many in the hard sciences would reject referring to it as a "theory." That said, I don't think that not qualifying as scientific takes away from its value. Like the system itself, its value is subjective. I think it offers a framework for evaluating personality. I think all people would benefit from some introspection, so anything that encourages a person to ask themselves why they look at life as they do is valuable. Anything that helps someone relate to others who are different from themselves is valuable. MBTI has been very useful to me in both of those aspects. And of course...everyone loves memes 😂
Scientific (do you mean "clinical" or "objective")? Then no, it isn't. No one in clinical psychology gives any serious credibility to the Myers-Briggs/Jung model of personality. It's the anatomical equivalent of Galen's study of monkey guts in modern day medicine.
@@KP-w 1) Your conclusion is incorrect. 2) The psychological establishment, for some reason, decided not to like Jungian typology, and now that contempt is culturally transmitted to new students of psychology, but generally speaking, the only people that have contempt for it are people that have never actually studied it. 3) the OCEAN model is based on a statistical distillation of people's opinions on what a basic set of personality traits are. They literally just surveyed a bunch of people, took the results, grouped them and whittled them down until they had five things. MBTI (and related typological systems) were derived from sustained and careful observation of people, and has gradually been added to over time. To be sure, there is typology related fluff out there, but if you actually read a few serious books on the subject, you'll notice that not only does it fairly well map on top of the OCEAN system, but rather elaborates on it and provides a lot more explanatory power.
@@Pengalen There's no contempt at work here, just a serious lack of any scientific basis that makes MBTI no better than corporate astrology lol. Cite the basis of your claim "MBTI was derived from sustained and careful observation of people and has been gradually added over time". Where are you getting that from? Do we have peer reviewed literature on that? So let me get this right, first you discredit the OCEAN model, calling it a "statistical distillation of people's opinions" (which it really is and consensus isn't science), and then you use it as a reference point to map the MB inventory on top of it, to elaborate on all that "glorified consensus"? Hilarious. Since you've piqued my curiosity, I'd like to know the names of these "few serious books" on the subject. 🤣
![ง้อ (ALRIGHT) - FOURTH Prod. by URBOYTJ [ OFFICIAL MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Qs8ZeV6Dqj8/mqdefault.jpg)
When someone asks me what my hobbies are, and I include "thinking." 🤓
Listening to music for hours and thinking 🤔
Full zone off
This is certainly spot on about us INTP’s. Well done.
There is NOTHING "weird" or "quirky" about any of this. It's all perfectly normal. I'm not so out of touch. It's the children who are wrong.
I thought I was an INFP, but per your video, it sounds like I am an INTP!
You have to take a test to know for sure.
Yes! And perfectionistic.
Why do I feel like I am watching National geography😂
3:51 😅
Information Hoarding. Ouch
My question is that mbti is scientific or not
Not in any traditional sense. The cognitive functions cannot be measured definitively, and I doubt any controlled study could prove that the mind organizes this way (functions working in a polar fashion, alternating between extroverted and introverted, etc.) MBTI is subjective. I'm sure many in the hard sciences would reject referring to it as a "theory."
That said, I don't think that not qualifying as scientific takes away from its value. Like the system itself, its value is subjective. I think it offers a framework for evaluating personality. I think all people would benefit from some introspection, so anything that encourages a person to ask themselves why they look at life as they do is valuable. Anything that helps someone relate to others who are different from themselves is valuable. MBTI has been very useful to me in both of those aspects.
And of course...everyone loves memes 😂
Yes.
Scientific (do you mean "clinical" or "objective")? Then no, it isn't. No one in clinical psychology gives any serious credibility to the Myers-Briggs/Jung model of personality. It's the anatomical equivalent of Galen's study of monkey guts in modern day medicine.
@@KP-w 1) Your conclusion is incorrect.
2) The psychological establishment, for some reason, decided not to like Jungian typology, and now that contempt is culturally transmitted to new students of psychology, but generally speaking, the only people that have contempt for it are people that have never actually studied it.
3) the OCEAN model is based on a statistical distillation of people's opinions on what a basic set of personality traits are. They literally just surveyed a bunch of people, took the results, grouped them and whittled them down until they had five things. MBTI (and related typological systems) were derived from sustained and careful observation of people, and has gradually been added to over time. To be sure, there is typology related fluff out there, but if you actually read a few serious books on the subject, you'll notice that not only does it fairly well map on top of the OCEAN system, but rather elaborates on it and provides a lot more explanatory power.
@@Pengalen There's no contempt at work here, just a serious lack of any scientific basis that makes MBTI no better than corporate astrology lol. Cite the basis of your claim "MBTI was derived from sustained and careful observation of people and has been gradually added over time". Where are you getting that from? Do we have peer reviewed literature on that? So let me get this right, first you discredit the OCEAN model, calling it a "statistical distillation of people's opinions" (which it really is and consensus isn't science), and then you use it as a reference point to map the MB inventory on top of it, to elaborate on all that "glorified consensus"? Hilarious. Since you've piqued my curiosity, I'd like to know the names of these "few serious books" on the subject. 🤣
My hobbies is simping over hot anime men