11 ms·

That's a typical INTP / type 5 enneagram brain wiring. I'm exactly like this. The real issue for us is first time impressions. If people knew you before becaus

That's a typical INTP / type 5 enneagram brain wiring. I'm exactly like this. The real issue for us is first time impressions. If people knew you before because of something important you've done, they will respect you. Otherwise, you'll fail to impress in the most important time: the first impression. It took me a long time in my career & expensive coaching sessions and so on, to understand that I really need to work my ass off for my first impression, even more that I don't give ChatGPT-like responses to everything (lots of confidence, but just plainly wrong). Of course, if I can just use my credentials to give an initial impression, that's better. But that's not usually the case. When it isn't, I need to be very present and aware that "it's my first impression, no need to be so precise, just say something silly and light-hearted.", because that's what most people typically expect. I started to find examples of people who dealt with this very well, like Steve Jobs and other people that are known to make long pauses and to think before they say something. But even those people aren't a great examples, because they generally are known to be geniuses at their fields and this basically makes your audience want to listen to you. You just really need to work on that skill, or accept that it will hamper your progress in life.

sneak 4y ago
MBTI are pseudoscience (just like astrology); there is no such thing as an INTP no matter how much you may feel to be described by the type.
- tpoacher 4y ago
  MBTI and things like INTP are 'definitions'. Trying to make business decisions on the basis of MBTI metrics, which is what it is often criticised for, is of course misguided. But saying "MBTI is pseudoscience you cannot be INTP" makes as much sense as "Hair colour names are unscientific, so you can't identify as blond". Sure you can. It's a description. I wouldn't go ascribing intelligence on the basis of hair colour, but I wouldn't doubt you have a hair colour either. And if you've found commonalities / common experiences and like being with other blond people, that's fine too.
  - nemetroid 4y ago
    The initial sentence of the original comment is the pseudoscientific part. > That's a typical INTP / type 5 enneagram brain wiring.
    - thiago_fm 4y ago
      I love how on the internet, people make a big effort to criticize arguments and not show any evidence that AT LEAST, proves that their criticism makes sense. So here I ask you: given that Psychology is a social SCIENCE, also a part of STEM. And psychologists definitely use those tests, I was personally introduced to them by a psychologist that helped me with career coaching, recognized on his field with a bunch of papers. Now, please explain yourself: why is it a pseudoscience? I want proofs.
  - nicoburns 4y ago
    The MBTI is descriptive. However, it claims to be descriptive of internal mental processes, which it posits to exist in a certain way (admittedly not everything interprets the MBTI this way, but IMO this is the only interpretation under which the MBTI is an interesting theory). I'm personally quite open to the idea that it's an accurate categorisation, but I do also think that it's an extroadinary claim that requires extroadinary justification. IMO saying "oh, it's just a description" because that evidence hasn't (yet) been found is a bit of a cop out.
  - flippinburgers 4y ago
    Lets be real though. Nobody just stops at they are INTP. This is the kind of thing that corporate busybodies in HR - or something related - will use to evaluate people.
- PedroBatista 4y ago
  Cool, you’re pointing out something many also agree, but how exactly is your comment even remotely constructive? There’s much more in OP’s comment than Myers-Briggs.
- nicoburns 4y ago
  MBTI differs significantly from astrology in that it's posited mechanism of action (genetics/early life experiences) is actually plausible, unlike astrology which suggests that differences in personality are due to astral bodies. It's pretty unsurprising that we're unable to measure the cognitive processes the MBTI posits given how limited our ability is to measure the brain in general. So I wouldn't count it out just because there's no experimental evidence (yet). I've been able to observe the difference between what the MBTI calls "Judgement" (slow thinking) and what the MBTI calls "Perception" (fast thinking) in real life. The example I always give is my high school "Further Maths" class. There were 4 people in my class and it happened that we always ended up working in pairs. However the way in which each pair worked was entirely different: - Pair 1 (me and my partner) worked independently, rushing through the questions by intuiting answers to each step. We'd then compare answers as a kind of checksum. If our answers differed, often one of us would immediately notice a mistake. And if not then we'd fall back to slowly working through the problem together step-by-step. - Pair 2 (the other two students) defaulted to this approach of slowly working through each problem step-by-step together. This took longer up front, but produced more accurate answers. Interesting, both approaches actually ended up taking a similar amount of time overall and yielding a similar accuracy of answer. But there is a huge qualitative difference in the kind of thinking that took place in each approach, and each person in the class also demonstrated a clear and stable preferrence for a specific approach. There is also a vast body of literature on "Dual-process theories" like this one, popularised by Daniel Kahneman's book Thinking Fast and Slow.
  - bombolo 4y ago
    > So I wouldn't count it out just because there's no experimental evidence That's not how science works. If you have a hypothesis with no experimental evidence, discussing it as a fact is akin to doing astrology. I'm sure you're aware that most people recognize themselves in horoscopes descriptions of their personality. This is quite similar to that.
    - nicoburns 4y ago
      > That's not how science works. If you have a hypothesis with no experimental evidence, discussing it as a fact is akin to doing astrology. Sure, but you can discuss it as theory without implying that it's proven fact. Most (if not all?) theories that are now considered scientific fact initially went through a period where they were lacking in conclusive experimental evidence. > I'm sure you're aware that most people recognize themselves in horoscopes descriptions of their personality. This is quite similar to that. I am. And that's why I think the plausibility of the theory is important. There's a difference between saying "people think in way A and way B" and "whether people think in way A or way B is determined by the position of the planets at the time they were born". I guess I would say that it's not quite true that there's no experimental evidence. It's more the case that the academic discipline "experimental psychology" has failed to find evidence. Other disciplines like cognitive science and behavioural economics tend not to have studied the MBTI specifically, but have found experimental evidence for theories that are substantially similar enough to the MBTI's hypotheses that IMO they do count as some evidence. Specifically there is experimental evidence that: - There are qualitatively different ways in which people can think and process information. - People can have a stable preference for a given thinking process. And that such preferences follow a bimodal distribution. - People can have a preference towards either introversion or extraversion (MBTI's I vs. E distinction) - People can think either in a "Fast" way (fast, intuitive, perceptually inaccesible) or a "Slow" way (slow, reasoned, perceptually accesible) (MBTI's J vs. P distinction) That's evidence for ~50% of the MBTI already, and would leave "Feeling" vs. "Thinking" (value judgement vs. descriptive judgement) and "Sensing" vs. "Intiuton" (concrete vs. abstract thinking) as interesting research questions.
- MadSudaca 4y ago
  I disagree. There’s no casual pathway between Astrology and who you are. With MBTI you respond to a questionnaire, so there is some connection to you. How accurate this is, well that’s a topic for debate. However, the most accurate personality models are also based on questionnaires of this sort. Some time ago I also thought MBTI was bullshit, now I think it’s quite useful. And at least for me, anecdotally, has predictive power.
  - sneak 4y ago
    > How accurate this is, well that’s a topic for debate. Not really; we know for a fact it is not accurate (and thus irrelevant). You can debate it if you wish but the facts of the matter have been long settled.
    - MadSudaca 4y ago
      Depends on how you define accuracy.
    - jiggunjer 4y ago
      Accuracy isn't binary. Not being perfect doesn't mean it is irrelevant. My map of the city could be more accurate but it still gets me where I need to go.
    - DarkNova6 4y ago
      That’s only in regards to the questionnaire, not the underlying system. If you understand the cognitive function, your prediction is a magnitude more accurate than any test.
    - bovermyer 4y ago
      OK, I'll bite. Not so much because I'm a defender of Myers-Briggs, but because there are significant problems with your two sentences here. > we know Who knows? Who is "we?" > it is not accurate Accuracy is not either "PERFECTLY TRUE" or "PERFECTLY FALSE." It is a range. > (and thus irrelevant) Even false statements or frameworks can provide interesting insights into how we think about a domain. > the facts of the matter Which facts would that be? > have been long settled By whom? In what study or paper? Were they properly tested?
- cjbgkagh 4y ago
  Their competitor mainstream psychology was fathered and dominated for a long time by Sigmund Freud. His success probably had more to do to his nephew Edward Bernays and the yearly exclusive balls for the elites than anything scientific. Now there is Nudge Theory which is marred by the replication crisis and repeat fabricators; hardly scientific (though more common in academia than it should be) but it tells governments what they want to hear so it’ll stay successful until the flaws are too obvious to ignore (note that I don’t follow the field overly closely). The MBTI is just a projection of the personality space like the more accepted Big 5. From my experience data-mining behavioral data at scale it’s a pretty good mapping and the relative value questions are adequate and the 4 dimensions do explain a lot of behavior to the point that it is very useful - a fact probability contributing to its success. My main gripe with it is the extrovert - introvert axis is a bit weak with many people being close to the middle. I’m more extroverted around intelligent people which doesn’t happen as often as I’d like, a trait held by far more commonly by ENTJ/INTJ than random chance.
  - nicoburns 4y ago
    > My main gripe with it is the extrovert - introvert axis is a bit weak with many people being close to the middle I think that's partly because people don't understand what extraverted vs. introverted mean in the MBTI sense. It's not about sociability. It's actually about how much external stimuli someone likes more generally. This might be social stimuli (Fe), but it could also be physical stimuli (Se) (for example, liking being physically active or out in nature) or more conceptual stimuli / external ideas (Ne), etc. Or a computing analogy: what's your ratio of IO to CPU time. Also, at least in the cognitive function interpretation (which IMO is the only sensible theory in the jungian/mbti family), introversion and extraversion do not apply directly to persons. They apply to thinking processes. An extraverted person is then just a person who uses an extraverted thinking mode more often than not (everyone is theorised to use both extraverted and introverted thinking modes). As you note this bias can be more or less extreme. Indeed, it's been observed that it can both be influenced by external factors (e.g. social expectations), and that it tends to become less extreme over time. As such, a persons "type" is generally considered to be determined by what their preference was in childhood, and (the type) is taken to define their baseline personality (cf. genotype) from which their actually observable personality (cf phenotype) develops.
- a3w 4y ago
  MBTI are pseudoscience -> This. It absolutely fails to make predictions, except that people who describe themselves as liking to think are people who like to think, and other obvious ideas. It is very hyped in actual application, though. As is homeopathy and astrology. <edit> Big Five Personality traits and the HEXACO model exist, and they seem to have more a more positive scientific review history. “Your boss is probably someone more likely to have qualities from the dark triad” is still bad news when looking at the real world versus an ideal world, but this seems to be a checked fact. </edit> There is some evidence to suggest that the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) may not be as reliable and valid as its proponents suggest. In fact, some studies have found that the MBTI does not consistently yield the same results for individuals who take it multiple times, which raises questions about its reproducibility and the reliability of the results. For example, a study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that only about half of individuals who took the MBTI twice received the same result both times. This suggests that the MBTI may not be a reliable measure of personality traits. In addition, other studies have found that the MBTI does not reliably predict job performance or other real-world outcomes, further questioning its validity as a psychological assessment tool.
  - nicoburns 4y ago
    The questionaire is bullshit (how on earth would we expect to measure thinking processes through a questionaire), but the underlying theory is a lot more interesting. It's terms (like "thinking") are technical jargon that don't correspond to their usual meanings though. For example "thinking" is really "descriptive judegement" (cognition focussed on whether things are true/false/possible/impossible), to be contrasted with "feeling" (which is actually also a rational cognitive process!) just focussed on "value judgement" (cognition focussed on whether things are good/bad/should happen/shouldn't happen). It is also not supposed to measure personality traits in the same sense that other models do. It is two steps removed: 1. It attempts to measure interal cognitive processes rather than external behavoural traits (how you think, not what you think) 2. It attempts to measure people's natural personality baseline (cf genotype) from which their actual personality (cf phenotype) develops as modified by their life experiences and the context in which they live. Both of which make it even more difficult to measure with a questionaire that tends to only ask about current behaviours. But IMO also make it a much more interesting and much more plausible theory.
- Zurrrrr 4y ago
  It's not just a pseudoscience, it's a cult.
- callesgg 4y ago
  It's a categorical system. It categorises people in to groups on dimensions. Dimensions that are ultimately defined by the questions that give the category. You can measure people on many dimensions, and all dimensions that are not truly random will correlate with some aspect of the persons life. Interestingly, some of the dimensions of the MTBI correlate with dimensions of the "Big 5". Introversion - Extroversion => Almost the same dimension as in Big 5. Intuitive - Sensation => Correlate strongly to Big 5 Openness The longer textual descriptions of the MTBI categories that one can find online are "made up" so they could indeed be said to be a type of pseudoscience.
- ayewo 4y ago
  What do you make of DiSC then? https://www.discprofile.com/what-is-disc https://www.discprofile.com/what-is-disc
Felminor 4y ago
I'm then the proof that intp is wrong. Because I think fast and that intp also matches me. But I'm honestly thinking this type of categorisation is stupid and doesn't add calue
- guiriduro 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - texaslonghorn5 4y ago
    or they expected autocorrect to catch it but it didn't trigger because no period. this is an entirely unnecessary comment lol
- hollander 4y ago
  Maybe you're an atypical INTP?
- MadSudaca 4y ago
  i don’t necessarily agree that the categorization process doesn’t add value, but I certainly think that the categories themselves do.
- nicoburns 4y ago
  > Because I think fast and that intp also matches me. I would suggest that if you primarily think in a fast, intuitive manner, then INTP doesn't match you because that antithetical to what INTP means. Perhaps you are reading too much into the "type descriptions" which tend to be stereotypically and not particular accurate (or are being too trusting of questionaire test results). Many of the types are similar to each other, so it's common to see oneself to an extent in more than one description. To be an INTP means that your dominant thinking process is "Introverted Thinking" which is slow, reasoned, logical thinking that places a high emphasis on internal consistency. And that this is backed up with a secondary thinking process of "Extraverted Intuition" which is fast, intuitive thinking, which an emphasis on ideas and creative, divergent thought patterns. Or at least, that this was true of you as a young person.
mettamage 4y ago
> "it's my first impression, no need to be so precise, just say something silly and light-hearted.", because that's what most people typically expect. This I told a friend of mine that whenever he goes on a first date. Whatever she asks, if it's within the first 10 minutes, say something that is clearly a non-serious answer. Don't say anything serious in the first 10 minutes. After that, feel free to be yourself. Since he's very serious, this helped to balance him out a bit, especially because his first impression was so different. "What kind of work do you do?" "I teach... rocks how to ehm... throw... other rocks. Which I know, there's an ethical issue to that. Like, would humans just be allowed to throw other humans? No! But in rock culture, well you gotta rock as a rock. Naturally, the electric guitar is their preferred instrument of choice. So rocks wanna be thrown, but only by other rocks, not by humans. I know, it's weird, I'm a bit of an exception but that's also because I grew up with parents that rocked and then it's sort of fine. Marilyn Manson also was a famous rock throwing coach." I just made that up, but stuff like that. Key to that is also knowing when to pause and be fully willing to be imperfect. I need to do something similar. I'm also too serious and too thinkey for the normal world. Fortunately, I have a huge imagination too, so I just show that first by being not serious at all :) I've thought about the whole "being yourself" thing versus deviating from it for the first 10 minutes, but I figured if putting up a bit of an act (that you enjoy yourself as well) for 10 minutes changes people's impression much more positively of you and then you can fully drop it and be yourself, then it's fine.
- Zurrrrr 4y ago
  > "I teach... rocks how to ehm... throw... other rocks. Which I know, there's an ethical issue to that. Like, would humans just be allowed to throw other humans? No! But in rock culture, well you gotta rock as a rock. Naturally, the electric guitar is their preferred instrument of choice. So rocks wanna be thrown, but only by other rocks, not by humans. I know, it's weird, I'm a bit of an exception but that's also because I grew up with parents that rocked and then it's sort of fine. Marilyn Manson also was a famous rock throwing coach." > I just made that up, but stuff like that. Maybe not quite like that...
- glitchc 4y ago
  > "I teach... rocks how to ehm... throw... other rocks. Which I know, there's an ethical issue to that. Like, would humans just be allowed to throw other humans? No! But in rock culture, well you gotta rock as a rock. Naturally, the electric guitar is their preferred instrument of choice. So rocks wanna be thrown, but only by other rocks, not by humans. I know, it's weird, I'm a bit of an exception but that's also because I grew up with parents that rocked and then it's sort of fine. Marilyn Manson also was a famous rock throwing coach." Buried somewhere in that pile is a nugget of comedy gold.
Dave_TRS 4y ago
I am an INTP and this resonates with me, but is mostly an issue in group settings rather than one on one meetings. In one-on-one first meetings I naturally participate in the back and forth. It's group meetings where I can just listen and absorb information that I come off as disengaged and don't make a good first impression. The strategy I use to mitigate this (suggested by an old boss) is to jump into the conversation very early in the meeting with 1 or 2 comments that I wouldn't have otherwise felt a need to make. It establishes my voice at the table and then I can relax and just process information
- thanatropism 4y ago
  I'm the opposite, in a group meeting I can see the camps forming and contribute a third view. In a 1-to-1 I don't know what your agenda is.
  - Dave_TRS 4y ago
    That's interesting, in the long run I would say I'm that way too, but it'll be toward the end of the meeting after things have been hashed out I'd contribute my new perspective. Or even worse for first impressions, I'll often I'll listen to a whole meeting, continue forming my thoughts even after the meeting has ended, and then write a well constructed email back to the key people. I may have figured out a better solution than was possible for anyone during the meeting, but by sending it late people's impressions during the meetings of me may not be the best.
- JohnBooty 4y ago
  I tend to make good first impressions, I think, because typically (in my experience) nothing too in-depth is being discussed on the first meeting. It's group meetings where I can just listen and absorb information that I come off as disengaged and don't make a good first impression This is where I struggle sometimes. IMO/IME if it's complicated enough to have a meeting about, then it's probably something that deserves some deeper thought. Blurting and hashing out a solution right then and there is rarely the path to an optimal solution. But of course, that's not how the world works. Spew out a solution right then and there. That's how you get ahead. Who cares if it's the best solution? You blurted it out first, and that is seen by others as a sign of confidence, and if you are confident then you must know what you're talking about... right? God, I need to get out of this industry. Maybe all industries. On a positive note, I do like your mitigation strategy.
dorkwood 4y ago
> The real issue for us is first time impressions. I have a similar problem. Meeting another programmer for the first time usually leaves me feeling quite stupid. They’ll start talking about all sorts of concepts, or how they built some particular thing, and I won’t be able to follow along at all. The good news is, since their first impression of me is so poor, they’re often blown away when they see something I spent time on. They must be thinking, how did this dingus do that?
- skylanh 4y ago
  I've an established theory that most people will try to pull you into a small sub-set of a field or area that they're an expert in, and then beat you silly with their knowledge. This is particularly brutal if they're ego-centric and doing it to depress upon you "how smart they are". I've seen this with quite a few "smart" people. There are two aspects to this: 1) talking "smart" - use of phrases, language, and ideas that aren't obvious, or using terms that are part of "smart" 2) small areas of their own knowledge that you are unlikely to know. Examples: friend would pull me into quantum string theory (M-brains, whatever) where they'd memorized certain details of it--they weren't particularly smart on quantum string theory, but I had zero knowledge. They'd keep turning the topic into these areas despite group's conversations not going that way naturally. another casual friend pulled me into the "A Tribe Called Red is so good" when I started gushing about my appreciation of multi-syllabically rapping styles of lyrical rappers that I liked. They were essentially regurgitating a critic's article on the topic. Some internal Microsofters a few decades ago would describe that there was internal smart-speak for "smart" identifying people. The same is true in most contexts.
  - bick_nyers 4y ago
    I like to just go along with it, and get them to teach me. Accept the idea that they are the expert, and place them into a teacher position. If you disagree with a statement being made, don't be adversarial, steelman their arguments and try get them to explain to you why they are making the statement they are making. Either you ignite their passion, or they avoid you because you are weirdly too enthusiastic about a mechanism they may have been using to overpower you. I had an math professor (NOT the one I am referencing in another comment) that was ego-centric and would often respond to my incessant questioning with demoralizing (and sometimes flat out rude) responses. I just acted completely oblivious to the social faux pas and his avoidance/adversarial tendencies eventually turned into a much more productive relationship. I received the only A in the class (he publicly posted everyone's grades).
SamPatt 4y ago
How do you know the first impressions people have are negative based on speed of response? I'm often slow to respond and make no effort to change that on first impression, but I have been told - many times - that people view me as thoughtful and intelligent. I can't view myself from another's perspective but if you take 5 seconds to come up with an answer which is really good, most people seem to completely forget the 5 second silence and remember the good answer. As you would expect. Many people's quick replies are poor quality, so a high quality reply stands out. This does assume someone can identify the difference, but hopefully you're in such an environment.
- starkd 4y ago
  Also, people tend to gravitate to a calm self-assured voice. The quick reply is more a hallmark of comedians and entertainers who need to quickly generate fame and popularity. Since the comedian is such a revered figure in American culture, perhaps that is why it is easy to try to mimic that approach.
  - SamPatt 4y ago
    Right. If you have the belief that others will value your input, regardless of speed, that seems to become a self-fulfilling prophecy (assuming that belief is derived from genuine previous experience of having created value). A quick wit is valuable, but not in all situations. If I'm a bit tipsy then I get less serious and think less deeply and respond more quickly and (at least in my mind) with more humor, which is great socially, but would be terrible in everyday life.
mattgreenrocks 4y ago
> You just really need to work on that skill, or accept that it will hamper your progress in life. First impressions are important, but there's a lot more to them than just simply being the first one out of the gate with something insightful. You can convey your seriousness and intent with presence, active listening, facial expressions, preparation, poise, etc. It is a projection of what you think about yourself, ultimately. If you're sitting there deliberating over getting the Good First Impression, or even just waiting for your turn to speak, people are going to pick up on that. Not saying you are, just that it is an easy trap to fall into.
starkd 4y ago
Elon Musk also tends to take long pauses when he answers a question. I thought it was odd the first time I saw it. Almost like he is looking it up on an internal interface or something. Not sure if this is done intentionally or a style that he has developed.
- bick_nyers 4y ago
  I was studying body language a few years back, and learned about what particular eye movements often correspond to thinking-wise. A fun exercise that I did was I watched some of Elon's interviews but I tried to contextualize EVERYTHING he said with his eye movements alone. When viewing from this lens, you can glean a lot of interesting information. A basic example: For right handed people, looking up and to the right often means they are tapping into their imagination, whereas up and to the left is memory. You can basically plot a chart of how engaged Elon is throughout his interview/talks, and know what responses he has that are pre-canned and what parts of those responses are more rehearsed than other parts. Some decent summaries can be found here: https://www.scienceofpeople.com/read-people-eyes/#5-eye-direction-body-language-gestures https://www.scienceofpeople.com/read-people-eyes/#5-eye-dire...
visviva 4y ago
As someone whose current job puts me into a lot of somewhat contextless meetings with peers, I've noticed this is an issue for me as well. Could you share any other specific strategies you've come across for this?
SuoDuanDao 4y ago
I'm INXP and type 5, and one thing that's helped me get around this is improvisational comedy. Probably more easy for me because I'm on the cusp of T and F so I'm used to not thinking all the time, but I imagine it'd still help someone farther on the T side of things.

sneak 4y ago

MBTI are pseudoscience (just like astrology); there is no such thing as an INTP no matter how much you may feel to be described by the type.

tpoacher 4y ago
MBTI and things like INTP are 'definitions'. Trying to make business decisions on the basis of MBTI metrics, which is what it is often criticised for, is of course misguided. But saying "MBTI is pseudoscience you cannot be INTP" makes as much sense as "Hair colour names are unscientific, so you can't identify as blond". Sure you can. It's a description. I wouldn't go ascribing intelligence on the basis of hair colour, but I wouldn't doubt you have a hair colour either. And if you've found commonalities / common experiences and like being with other blond people, that's fine too.
- nemetroid 4y ago
  The initial sentence of the original comment is the pseudoscientific part. > That's a typical INTP / type 5 enneagram brain wiring.
  - thiago_fm 4y ago
    I love how on the internet, people make a big effort to criticize arguments and not show any evidence that AT LEAST, proves that their criticism makes sense. So here I ask you: given that Psychology is a social SCIENCE, also a part of STEM. And psychologists definitely use those tests, I was personally introduced to them by a psychologist that helped me with career coaching, recognized on his field with a bunch of papers. Now, please explain yourself: why is it a pseudoscience? I want proofs.
- nicoburns 4y ago
  The MBTI is descriptive. However, it claims to be descriptive of internal mental processes, which it posits to exist in a certain way (admittedly not everything interprets the MBTI this way, but IMO this is the only interpretation under which the MBTI is an interesting theory). I'm personally quite open to the idea that it's an accurate categorisation, but I do also think that it's an extroadinary claim that requires extroadinary justification. IMO saying "oh, it's just a description" because that evidence hasn't (yet) been found is a bit of a cop out.
- flippinburgers 4y ago
  Lets be real though. Nobody just stops at they are INTP. This is the kind of thing that corporate busybodies in HR - or something related - will use to evaluate people.
PedroBatista 4y ago
Cool, you’re pointing out something many also agree, but how exactly is your comment even remotely constructive? There’s much more in OP’s comment than Myers-Briggs.
nicoburns 4y ago
MBTI differs significantly from astrology in that it's posited mechanism of action (genetics/early life experiences) is actually plausible, unlike astrology which suggests that differences in personality are due to astral bodies. It's pretty unsurprising that we're unable to measure the cognitive processes the MBTI posits given how limited our ability is to measure the brain in general. So I wouldn't count it out just because there's no experimental evidence (yet). I've been able to observe the difference between what the MBTI calls "Judgement" (slow thinking) and what the MBTI calls "Perception" (fast thinking) in real life. The example I always give is my high school "Further Maths" class. There were 4 people in my class and it happened that we always ended up working in pairs. However the way in which each pair worked was entirely different: - Pair 1 (me and my partner) worked independently, rushing through the questions by intuiting answers to each step. We'd then compare answers as a kind of checksum. If our answers differed, often one of us would immediately notice a mistake. And if not then we'd fall back to slowly working through the problem together step-by-step. - Pair 2 (the other two students) defaulted to this approach of slowly working through each problem step-by-step together. This took longer up front, but produced more accurate answers. Interesting, both approaches actually ended up taking a similar amount of time overall and yielding a similar accuracy of answer. But there is a huge qualitative difference in the kind of thinking that took place in each approach, and each person in the class also demonstrated a clear and stable preferrence for a specific approach. There is also a vast body of literature on "Dual-process theories" like this one, popularised by Daniel Kahneman's book Thinking Fast and Slow.
- bombolo 4y ago
  > So I wouldn't count it out just because there's no experimental evidence That's not how science works. If you have a hypothesis with no experimental evidence, discussing it as a fact is akin to doing astrology. I'm sure you're aware that most people recognize themselves in horoscopes descriptions of their personality. This is quite similar to that.
  - nicoburns 4y ago
    > That's not how science works. If you have a hypothesis with no experimental evidence, discussing it as a fact is akin to doing astrology. Sure, but you can discuss it as theory without implying that it's proven fact. Most (if not all?) theories that are now considered scientific fact initially went through a period where they were lacking in conclusive experimental evidence. > I'm sure you're aware that most people recognize themselves in horoscopes descriptions of their personality. This is quite similar to that. I am. And that's why I think the plausibility of the theory is important. There's a difference between saying "people think in way A and way B" and "whether people think in way A or way B is determined by the position of the planets at the time they were born". I guess I would say that it's not quite true that there's no experimental evidence. It's more the case that the academic discipline "experimental psychology" has failed to find evidence. Other disciplines like cognitive science and behavioural economics tend not to have studied the MBTI specifically, but have found experimental evidence for theories that are substantially similar enough to the MBTI's hypotheses that IMO they do count as some evidence. Specifically there is experimental evidence that: - There are qualitatively different ways in which people can think and process information. - People can have a stable preference for a given thinking process. And that such preferences follow a bimodal distribution. - People can have a preference towards either introversion or extraversion (MBTI's I vs. E distinction) - People can think either in a "Fast" way (fast, intuitive, perceptually inaccesible) or a "Slow" way (slow, reasoned, perceptually accesible) (MBTI's J vs. P distinction) That's evidence for ~50% of the MBTI already, and would leave "Feeling" vs. "Thinking" (value judgement vs. descriptive judgement) and "Sensing" vs. "Intiuton" (concrete vs. abstract thinking) as interesting research questions.
MadSudaca 4y ago
I disagree. There’s no casual pathway between Astrology and who you are. With MBTI you respond to a questionnaire, so there is some connection to you. How accurate this is, well that’s a topic for debate. However, the most accurate personality models are also based on questionnaires of this sort. Some time ago I also thought MBTI was bullshit, now I think it’s quite useful. And at least for me, anecdotally, has predictive power.
- sneak 4y ago
  > How accurate this is, well that’s a topic for debate. Not really; we know for a fact it is not accurate (and thus irrelevant). You can debate it if you wish but the facts of the matter have been long settled.
  - MadSudaca 4y ago
    Depends on how you define accuracy.
  - jiggunjer 4y ago
    Accuracy isn't binary. Not being perfect doesn't mean it is irrelevant. My map of the city could be more accurate but it still gets me where I need to go.
  - DarkNova6 4y ago
    That’s only in regards to the questionnaire, not the underlying system. If you understand the cognitive function, your prediction is a magnitude more accurate than any test.
  - bovermyer 4y ago
    OK, I'll bite. Not so much because I'm a defender of Myers-Briggs, but because there are significant problems with your two sentences here. > we know Who knows? Who is "we?" > it is not accurate Accuracy is not either "PERFECTLY TRUE" or "PERFECTLY FALSE." It is a range. > (and thus irrelevant) Even false statements or frameworks can provide interesting insights into how we think about a domain. > the facts of the matter Which facts would that be? > have been long settled By whom? In what study or paper? Were they properly tested?
cjbgkagh 4y ago
Their competitor mainstream psychology was fathered and dominated for a long time by Sigmund Freud. His success probably had more to do to his nephew Edward Bernays and the yearly exclusive balls for the elites than anything scientific. Now there is Nudge Theory which is marred by the replication crisis and repeat fabricators; hardly scientific (though more common in academia than it should be) but it tells governments what they want to hear so it’ll stay successful until the flaws are too obvious to ignore (note that I don’t follow the field overly closely). The MBTI is just a projection of the personality space like the more accepted Big 5. From my experience data-mining behavioral data at scale it’s a pretty good mapping and the relative value questions are adequate and the 4 dimensions do explain a lot of behavior to the point that it is very useful - a fact probability contributing to its success. My main gripe with it is the extrovert - introvert axis is a bit weak with many people being close to the middle. I’m more extroverted around intelligent people which doesn’t happen as often as I’d like, a trait held by far more commonly by ENTJ/INTJ than random chance.
- nicoburns 4y ago
  > My main gripe with it is the extrovert - introvert axis is a bit weak with many people being close to the middle I think that's partly because people don't understand what extraverted vs. introverted mean in the MBTI sense. It's not about sociability. It's actually about how much external stimuli someone likes more generally. This might be social stimuli (Fe), but it could also be physical stimuli (Se) (for example, liking being physically active or out in nature) or more conceptual stimuli / external ideas (Ne), etc. Or a computing analogy: what's your ratio of IO to CPU time. Also, at least in the cognitive function interpretation (which IMO is the only sensible theory in the jungian/mbti family), introversion and extraversion do not apply directly to persons. They apply to thinking processes. An extraverted person is then just a person who uses an extraverted thinking mode more often than not (everyone is theorised to use both extraverted and introverted thinking modes). As you note this bias can be more or less extreme. Indeed, it's been observed that it can both be influenced by external factors (e.g. social expectations), and that it tends to become less extreme over time. As such, a persons "type" is generally considered to be determined by what their preference was in childhood, and (the type) is taken to define their baseline personality (cf. genotype) from which their actually observable personality (cf phenotype) develops.
a3w 4y ago
MBTI are pseudoscience -> This. It absolutely fails to make predictions, except that people who describe themselves as liking to think are people who like to think, and other obvious ideas. It is very hyped in actual application, though. As is homeopathy and astrology. <edit> Big Five Personality traits and the HEXACO model exist, and they seem to have more a more positive scientific review history. “Your boss is probably someone more likely to have qualities from the dark triad” is still bad news when looking at the real world versus an ideal world, but this seems to be a checked fact. </edit> There is some evidence to suggest that the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) may not be as reliable and valid as its proponents suggest. In fact, some studies have found that the MBTI does not consistently yield the same results for individuals who take it multiple times, which raises questions about its reproducibility and the reliability of the results. For example, a study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that only about half of individuals who took the MBTI twice received the same result both times. This suggests that the MBTI may not be a reliable measure of personality traits. In addition, other studies have found that the MBTI does not reliably predict job performance or other real-world outcomes, further questioning its validity as a psychological assessment tool.
- nicoburns 4y ago
  The questionaire is bullshit (how on earth would we expect to measure thinking processes through a questionaire), but the underlying theory is a lot more interesting. It's terms (like "thinking") are technical jargon that don't correspond to their usual meanings though. For example "thinking" is really "descriptive judegement" (cognition focussed on whether things are true/false/possible/impossible), to be contrasted with "feeling" (which is actually also a rational cognitive process!) just focussed on "value judgement" (cognition focussed on whether things are good/bad/should happen/shouldn't happen). It is also not supposed to measure personality traits in the same sense that other models do. It is two steps removed: 1. It attempts to measure interal cognitive processes rather than external behavoural traits (how you think, not what you think) 2. It attempts to measure people's natural personality baseline (cf genotype) from which their actual personality (cf phenotype) develops as modified by their life experiences and the context in which they live. Both of which make it even more difficult to measure with a questionaire that tends to only ask about current behaviours. But IMO also make it a much more interesting and much more plausible theory.
Zurrrrr 4y ago
It's not just a pseudoscience, it's a cult.
callesgg 4y ago
It's a categorical system. It categorises people in to groups on dimensions. Dimensions that are ultimately defined by the questions that give the category. You can measure people on many dimensions, and all dimensions that are not truly random will correlate with some aspect of the persons life. Interestingly, some of the dimensions of the MTBI correlate with dimensions of the "Big 5". Introversion - Extroversion => Almost the same dimension as in Big 5. Intuitive - Sensation => Correlate strongly to Big 5 Openness The longer textual descriptions of the MTBI categories that one can find online are "made up" so they could indeed be said to be a type of pseudoscience.
ayewo 4y ago
What do you make of DiSC then? https://www.discprofile.com/what-is-disc https://www.discprofile.com/what-is-disc

Felminor 4y ago

I'm then the proof that intp is wrong. Because I think fast and that intp also matches me. But I'm honestly thinking this type of categorisation is stupid and doesn't add calue

guiriduro 4y ago
[flagged]
- texaslonghorn5 4y ago
  or they expected autocorrect to catch it but it didn't trigger because no period. this is an entirely unnecessary comment lol
hollander 4y ago
Maybe you're an atypical INTP?
MadSudaca 4y ago
i don’t necessarily agree that the categorization process doesn’t add value, but I certainly think that the categories themselves do.
nicoburns 4y ago
> Because I think fast and that intp also matches me. I would suggest that if you primarily think in a fast, intuitive manner, then INTP doesn't match you because that antithetical to what INTP means. Perhaps you are reading too much into the "type descriptions" which tend to be stereotypically and not particular accurate (or are being too trusting of questionaire test results). Many of the types are similar to each other, so it's common to see oneself to an extent in more than one description. To be an INTP means that your dominant thinking process is "Introverted Thinking" which is slow, reasoned, logical thinking that places a high emphasis on internal consistency. And that this is backed up with a secondary thinking process of "Extraverted Intuition" which is fast, intuitive thinking, which an emphasis on ideas and creative, divergent thought patterns. Or at least, that this was true of you as a young person.

mettamage 4y ago

> "it's my first impression, no need to be so precise, just say something silly and light-hearted.", because that's what most people typically expect. This I told a friend of mine that whenever he goes on a first date. Whatever she asks, if it's within the first 10 minutes, say something that is clearly a non-serious answer. Don't say anything serious in the first 10 minutes. After that, feel free to be yourself. Since he's very serious, this helped to balance him out a bit, especially because his first impression was so different. "What kind of work do you do?" "I teach... rocks how to ehm... throw... other rocks. Which I know, there's an ethical issue to that. Like, would humans just be allowed to throw other humans? No! But in rock culture, well you gotta rock as a rock. Naturally, the electric guitar is their preferred instrument of choice. So rocks wanna be thrown, but only by other rocks, not by humans. I know, it's weird, I'm a bit of an exception but that's also because I grew up with parents that rocked and then it's sort of fine. Marilyn Manson also was a famous rock throwing coach." I just made that up, but stuff like that. Key to that is also knowing when to pause and be fully willing to be imperfect. I need to do something similar. I'm also too serious and too thinkey for the normal world. Fortunately, I have a huge imagination too, so I just show that first by being not serious at all :) I've thought about the whole "being yourself" thing versus deviating from it for the first 10 minutes, but I figured if putting up a bit of an act (that you enjoy yourself as well) for 10 minutes changes people's impression much more positively of you and then you can fully drop it and be yourself, then it's fine.

Zurrrrr 4y ago
> "I teach... rocks how to ehm... throw... other rocks. Which I know, there's an ethical issue to that. Like, would humans just be allowed to throw other humans? No! But in rock culture, well you gotta rock as a rock. Naturally, the electric guitar is their preferred instrument of choice. So rocks wanna be thrown, but only by other rocks, not by humans. I know, it's weird, I'm a bit of an exception but that's also because I grew up with parents that rocked and then it's sort of fine. Marilyn Manson also was a famous rock throwing coach." > I just made that up, but stuff like that. Maybe not quite like that...
glitchc 4y ago
> "I teach... rocks how to ehm... throw... other rocks. Which I know, there's an ethical issue to that. Like, would humans just be allowed to throw other humans? No! But in rock culture, well you gotta rock as a rock. Naturally, the electric guitar is their preferred instrument of choice. So rocks wanna be thrown, but only by other rocks, not by humans. I know, it's weird, I'm a bit of an exception but that's also because I grew up with parents that rocked and then it's sort of fine. Marilyn Manson also was a famous rock throwing coach." Buried somewhere in that pile is a nugget of comedy gold.

Dave_TRS 4y ago

I am an INTP and this resonates with me, but is mostly an issue in group settings rather than one on one meetings. In one-on-one first meetings I naturally participate in the back and forth. It's group meetings where I can just listen and absorb information that I come off as disengaged and don't make a good first impression. The strategy I use to mitigate this (suggested by an old boss) is to jump into the conversation very early in the meeting with 1 or 2 comments that I wouldn't have otherwise felt a need to make. It establishes my voice at the table and then I can relax and just process information

thanatropism 4y ago
I'm the opposite, in a group meeting I can see the camps forming and contribute a third view. In a 1-to-1 I don't know what your agenda is.
- Dave_TRS 4y ago
  That's interesting, in the long run I would say I'm that way too, but it'll be toward the end of the meeting after things have been hashed out I'd contribute my new perspective. Or even worse for first impressions, I'll often I'll listen to a whole meeting, continue forming my thoughts even after the meeting has ended, and then write a well constructed email back to the key people. I may have figured out a better solution than was possible for anyone during the meeting, but by sending it late people's impressions during the meetings of me may not be the best.
JohnBooty 4y ago
I tend to make good first impressions, I think, because typically (in my experience) nothing too in-depth is being discussed on the first meeting. It's group meetings where I can just listen and absorb information that I come off as disengaged and don't make a good first impression This is where I struggle sometimes. IMO/IME if it's complicated enough to have a meeting about, then it's probably something that deserves some deeper thought. Blurting and hashing out a solution right then and there is rarely the path to an optimal solution. But of course, that's not how the world works. Spew out a solution right then and there. That's how you get ahead. Who cares if it's the best solution? You blurted it out first, and that is seen by others as a sign of confidence, and if you are confident then you must know what you're talking about... right? God, I need to get out of this industry. Maybe all industries. On a positive note, I do like your mitigation strategy.

dorkwood 4y ago

> The real issue for us is first time impressions. I have a similar problem. Meeting another programmer for the first time usually leaves me feeling quite stupid. They’ll start talking about all sorts of concepts, or how they built some particular thing, and I won’t be able to follow along at all. The good news is, since their first impression of me is so poor, they’re often blown away when they see something I spent time on. They must be thinking, how did this dingus do that?

skylanh 4y ago
I've an established theory that most people will try to pull you into a small sub-set of a field or area that they're an expert in, and then beat you silly with their knowledge. This is particularly brutal if they're ego-centric and doing it to depress upon you "how smart they are". I've seen this with quite a few "smart" people. There are two aspects to this: 1) talking "smart" - use of phrases, language, and ideas that aren't obvious, or using terms that are part of "smart" 2) small areas of their own knowledge that you are unlikely to know. Examples: friend would pull me into quantum string theory (M-brains, whatever) where they'd memorized certain details of it--they weren't particularly smart on quantum string theory, but I had zero knowledge. They'd keep turning the topic into these areas despite group's conversations not going that way naturally. another casual friend pulled me into the "A Tribe Called Red is so good" when I started gushing about my appreciation of multi-syllabically rapping styles of lyrical rappers that I liked. They were essentially regurgitating a critic's article on the topic. Some internal Microsofters a few decades ago would describe that there was internal smart-speak for "smart" identifying people. The same is true in most contexts.
- bick_nyers 4y ago
  I like to just go along with it, and get them to teach me. Accept the idea that they are the expert, and place them into a teacher position. If you disagree with a statement being made, don't be adversarial, steelman their arguments and try get them to explain to you why they are making the statement they are making. Either you ignite their passion, or they avoid you because you are weirdly too enthusiastic about a mechanism they may have been using to overpower you. I had an math professor (NOT the one I am referencing in another comment) that was ego-centric and would often respond to my incessant questioning with demoralizing (and sometimes flat out rude) responses. I just acted completely oblivious to the social faux pas and his avoidance/adversarial tendencies eventually turned into a much more productive relationship. I received the only A in the class (he publicly posted everyone's grades).

SamPatt 4y ago

How do you know the first impressions people have are negative based on speed of response? I'm often slow to respond and make no effort to change that on first impression, but I have been told - many times - that people view me as thoughtful and intelligent. I can't view myself from another's perspective but if you take 5 seconds to come up with an answer which is really good, most people seem to completely forget the 5 second silence and remember the good answer. As you would expect. Many people's quick replies are poor quality, so a high quality reply stands out. This does assume someone can identify the difference, but hopefully you're in such an environment.

starkd 4y ago
Also, people tend to gravitate to a calm self-assured voice. The quick reply is more a hallmark of comedians and entertainers who need to quickly generate fame and popularity. Since the comedian is such a revered figure in American culture, perhaps that is why it is easy to try to mimic that approach.
- SamPatt 4y ago
  Right. If you have the belief that others will value your input, regardless of speed, that seems to become a self-fulfilling prophecy (assuming that belief is derived from genuine previous experience of having created value). A quick wit is valuable, but not in all situations. If I'm a bit tipsy then I get less serious and think less deeply and respond more quickly and (at least in my mind) with more humor, which is great socially, but would be terrible in everyday life.

mattgreenrocks 4y ago

> You just really need to work on that skill, or accept that it will hamper your progress in life. First impressions are important, but there's a lot more to them than just simply being the first one out of the gate with something insightful. You can convey your seriousness and intent with presence, active listening, facial expressions, preparation, poise, etc. It is a projection of what you think about yourself, ultimately. If you're sitting there deliberating over getting the Good First Impression, or even just waiting for your turn to speak, people are going to pick up on that. Not saying you are, just that it is an easy trap to fall into.

starkd 4y ago

Elon Musk also tends to take long pauses when he answers a question. I thought it was odd the first time I saw it. Almost like he is looking it up on an internal interface or something. Not sure if this is done intentionally or a style that he has developed.

bick_nyers 4y ago
I was studying body language a few years back, and learned about what particular eye movements often correspond to thinking-wise. A fun exercise that I did was I watched some of Elon's interviews but I tried to contextualize EVERYTHING he said with his eye movements alone. When viewing from this lens, you can glean a lot of interesting information. A basic example: For right handed people, looking up and to the right often means they are tapping into their imagination, whereas up and to the left is memory. You can basically plot a chart of how engaged Elon is throughout his interview/talks, and know what responses he has that are pre-canned and what parts of those responses are more rehearsed than other parts. Some decent summaries can be found here: https://www.scienceofpeople.com/read-people-eyes/#5-eye-direction-body-language-gestures https://www.scienceofpeople.com/read-people-eyes/#5-eye-dire...

visviva 4y ago

As someone whose current job puts me into a lot of somewhat contextless meetings with peers, I've noticed this is an issue for me as well. Could you share any other specific strategies you've come across for this?

SuoDuanDao 4y ago

I'm INXP and type 5, and one thing that's helped me get around this is improvisational comedy. Probably more easy for me because I'm on the cusp of T and F so I'm used to not thinking all the time, but I imagine it'd still help someone farther on the T side of things.