3 ms·

Really bad analyse done by a person who haven't even bothered to find about basic psychological typing systems like MBTI or The big five. Personally it seems t

by Sirex 13y ago

Really bad analyse done by a person who haven't even bothered to find about basic psychological typing systems like MBTI or The big five. Personally it seems that he describes TI (Introverted thinking) and then label "flow" as TE (Extraverted thinking) or SE (Sensing Extraverted). Point being, their exist more then two ways to reason about making decision and living life. To me the author comes about as extremely self-centred and self-importante since he hasn't even bothered to look at the field of his topic. He totally forgets to take account of feelers, people who make decisions based on how they will feel or how other people will feel after a decision.

petegrif 13y ago
Jees - what a misery guts. Loosen up. He's sharing his thoughts. He's not your psych prof.
B-Con 13y ago
For MBTI, it seemed like more of tenuous a J/P mapping. Structured being J, "go with the flow" being P. The structured, high-level/multi-level thinking is more of an extroverted judging function (aka, J-like), whereas the more step-by-step, adventurous thinking is more introverted judging (aka, more P-like). However, I do stress that it is a tenuous connection. Neither list is a good list of J or P, most notably P. As a side note, I do find it interesting that many attempts to describe personality or thought process often resemble MBTI in some way. (I'm a huge MBTI fan.)
javert 13y ago
Completely disagree because he has provided reasoning based on personal observation of real-life situations. That makes it amenable to understanding, evaluation, and practical application by himself and by other people, like me. The same can't be said for very complex models like MBTI or the so-called "big five" which are difficult to understand and require complex scientific methods to study. Such models may be correct and may be useful, but it would be hard to evaluate their correctness and it would take a vast amount of effort to use them.

by Sirex 13y ago

petegrif 13y ago

Jees - what a misery guts. Loosen up. He's sharing his thoughts. He's not your psych prof.

B-Con 13y ago

For MBTI, it seemed like more of tenuous a J/P mapping. Structured being J, "go with the flow" being P. The structured, high-level/multi-level thinking is more of an extroverted judging function (aka, J-like), whereas the more step-by-step, adventurous thinking is more introverted judging (aka, more P-like). However, I do stress that it is a tenuous connection. Neither list is a good list of J or P, most notably P. As a side note, I do find it interesting that many attempts to describe personality or thought process often resemble MBTI in some way. (I'm a huge MBTI fan.)

javert 13y ago

Completely disagree because he has provided reasoning based on personal observation of real-life situations. That makes it amenable to understanding, evaluation, and practical application by himself and by other people, like me. The same can't be said for very complex models like MBTI or the so-called "big five" which are difficult to understand and require complex scientific methods to study. Such models may be correct and may be useful, but it would be hard to evaluate their correctness and it would take a vast amount of effort to use them.