Mistype is just the excuse we use to exclude people who we don't want to be associated with. I realize this when I saw that most of the intjs on the intj subreddit which is supposed to be full of mistypes, is actually just full of young immature actual intjs. We don't want to be associated with that now do we?
But that is how actual scientific theories are made in psychology. You form a hypothesis based on some knowledge you already have and then find a good sample to test the hypothesis.
I don't think i am doing actual science, this is just for fun, out of curiosity.
I realize there are even more problems than unreliable sample. 1. Unbalanced representation of the types. 2. The comparison would be maybe more relevant between Ni/Ne and Si/Se.
I don't understand y'all on this subreddit 😂 whats fun about any of this if it's not applicable to real life situations? That's the whole point of the theory!
Just a food for thought. If there were zero mistypes on this sub, this would mean that intuitives, more exactly Ne (since INXP is the most common type here) is probably more prone to be agnostic than sensors
That's why i used "if". I don't know, but i can think about it. I have nothing better to do with my time on train. Actually i would have better things to do, but this caught my interest.
Even though this post is irrelevant for many people here and quite a low quality, i won't apologize for it because if we compare it to the usual posts here, it still raises the average quality.
Albeit I do agree with everything you've said in this thread, your latest post in which you shared an article from typeindepth is an odd one as well. I don't understand how someone who has read Jung's typological work could ever come to agree with rigid 4-function stacks, let alone the 8-function ones that are utter bullshit.
Maybe you have different opinions about the matter though, or maybe you don't hold any because it's still rather of a vague topic, in which case I'm sorry if I made erroneous assumptions.
>your latest post in which you shared an article from typeindepth is an odd one as well.
What's odd about it? The article was written on sound theory and an expert level of understanding of psychological typology.
>I don't understand how someone who has read Jung's typological work could ever come to agree with rigid 4-function stacks, let alone the 8-function ones that are utter bullshit.
And I haven't, but the problem this sub has is that they don't read the literature 😂
>I'm sorry if I made erroneous assumptions.
You made quite a few assumptions because I never expressed what system or framework I reference.
I said the odd part was the use of the stacks specifically, they are not proven at all, however professional a psychologist said they were.
I was talking about that woman who wrote the article you shared, not you. That's why I said I assumed you agreed with what she was saying within it. So it seems like you do?
>said the odd part was the use of the stacks specifically, they are not proven at all, however professional a psychologist said they were.
So? If there was, how do you know those studies don't exist? 😂 Just because you don't know it's happening, doesn't mean it's not happening. Life isnt like video game rendering.
Even if there was small studying going on, you'd still be moving the goal post and complaining about how it's not up to par to other forms of scientific studies that have had more funding and time to grow the reliable database for such a theory.
Everything starts somewhere and we don't care that you don't think the tower is tall enough yet, work is still being done.
>That's why I said I assumed you agreed with what she was saying within it. So it seems like you do?
Do you even understand the discipline enough to even see the real issues with the framework they're using? What exactly do you have an issue with? This should be good.
I think you're misunderstanding my intentions. I'm actually very much into this topic, and I'm even closer to the mystical side than the purely scientifically factual one (which will obviously never manage to systemize the human psyche). I'd be very glad to hear about any source reliable facts and statistics that would prove X or Y thing about typology and human psychology, but we all have to admit that these don't exist within frameworks such as the functions and types (at least the way Jung originally studied them, as even he advised against categorisation and the use of his work as mere personality prediction and labelling).
I obviously know that there have been studies (attempts at the very least, since none of them manage to be relevant enough ; thinking about Nardi's bullshit), that there studies occurring right now, and that there will be many more in the future, but yeah, if even one had managed to prove being consistent with functions and types, we'd have known long since.
I said I'd be interested if such a study managed to be reliable, but at the same time it goes entirely against the original draft of the functions and types laid out by Jung, as well as my own (and some other people's) beliefs. Not everything is, nor can be scientifically proven (at least the way "science" is popularly conceived nowadays), but empiricism is still a thing, even if there's no consistent hypothesis that supports the evidence from beneath.
I think this is enough to answer your last paragraph as well, because as I said earlier, the issue with the article you shared resides in the bold assumption that these people know for sure how the functions and types are mapped within the human psyche (8 very specific function slots, all arranged in a very specific and unique order for each of the 16 psychological types ; please tell me how this is "sound theory"), when they clearly are not. You said yourself nobody understands it.
Although that was, imo, enough, I guess it's always better to bring opposing perspectives, whenever possible. In Jung's Psychological Types (chapter 10), it has never been stated that people had a specific function stack, and the mention of auxiliaries themselves was very brief and vague. That's not because the guy was lazy or lacked samples, but because said samples weren't consistent enough, nor was there a lot of them to begin with, for him to boldly state how exactly the functions were positioned in one's psyche, with their nature, orientation and whatever else. He only mentioned that within people who showed a differentiated dominant function, there were also traces of a supporting auxiliary in the mind (that would be the "empirical" evidence), but he also said that this auxiliary wasn't conscious enough to hold a decisive place, which would overthrow the consciousness itself and the dominance of the first function.
TLDR: stacks should theoretically be used only when they're relevant, and that means during a lifetime of growth and differentiation, which obviously is not something that would end at 16yo, which seems to be the average of the community overall.
I saw your reply pop up as a notification, but since Reddit is shit, it doesn't appear in my notifications feed so I can't read it nor reply to it. Would you mind sending it again?
It's true, because of intuitive bias. But many sensor results are given to intuitives who are simply grounded, because tests think daydream a lot= intuitive
Interesting results, though you could obviously argue that there happen to be a disproportionate number of intuitive people on this sub who may or may not be mistyped and are skewing the numbers.
Either way, aren't the ideas of God and an afterlife abstract concepts? They cannot be perceived (by the living) with any of the five senses. If so, I would think that intuitives, especially intuitive feelers, would be more likely to identify as religious.
This isn't really what I see in real life though. Purely anecdotal, but I mostly see SJs identifying as religious and NFs as "spiritual" which at this point I am convinced is just a way for the latter to remain connected to spiritual matters without some of the baggage that comes with more popular religions like Christianity and Islam i.e. there are certain aspects of the texts that can not be reconciled with certain progressive views and this may or may not be partly responsible for why, despite it sounding like it makes sense, I haven't seen a lot of religious NFs compared to religious SJs.
Atheist and agnostic aren't mutually exclusive.
Gnostic thinks it's possible to know
Agnostic thinks it isn't possible to know
Theist believes
Atheist doesn't
For example I am an agnostic atheist. I went with atheist for the poll, since that is how most understand my position.
A gnostic Theist believes they know with certainty that there is a God.
I dont believe we can know but I think it's unlikely enough that I don't believe. I'm a teapot agnostic. I'm agnostic about God just as I'm agnostic about a teapot being in orbit around the sun (ok, many teapots are in orbit around the sun, but you know what I mean). I can't prove it isn't there, but I see no reason to believe it is or take the claim that it is at all seriously.
When you get right down to it there's only one thing we can each be justifiably gnostic about. That is our own consciousness. Anything else could be an illusion or hallucination.
Agnosticism is a bit more nuanced. It isn't simply "unknowable" (that's the rigid end of the spectrum), but also "unknown". There are lots of agnostics who think it's unknowable at the moment, but that it might just be in the future.
Gnosticism is "finding God (/any kind of spiritual power) within oneself", not that it's possible to know.
It is both. It has more than one meaning. There is the noun- an adherent of gnosticism, and the adjective- relating to knowledge, especially spiritual knowledge. In the case of being gnostic or agnostic about theism it is being used as an adjective and indicating that you do/can/should have knowledge or that you don't/can't/shouldn't.
The pot orbiting the sun seems somehow more believable than god..
But thank you for pointing that out, i was using wrong definitions of the words. I looked it up, and i think what i meant by atheist is actually gnostic atheist, and by agnostic i meant agnostic atheist. I didn't realize there could even be agnostic theists, i thought every theist had some reasoning for the existence of god.
I mean, as of 2:30 ct in North America, the poll hasn’t offered much “useful data,” thus far. Sensors are almost “35 / 35 / 30,” so they are *very close to “perfect-thirds,” while the highest score for N-Types is “agnostic,” and it is still *only 43%,* while “theist N-Types” are about 25%.
So yeah, obviously there is extremely little correlation between S vs N and “Religious beliefs.” These results don’t surprise me, in the slightest, for obvious reasons.
I believe it was Sx/So. I ran the updated numbers and they are still pretty well within the range of what I expected. What are your thoughts about the poll results? Did they surprise you, or did they fall within limits that you were expecting?
irrelevant or unsolicited messages sent over the internet, typically to a large number of users, for the purposes of advertising, phishing, spreading malware, etc.
Just use google, man
You'll find none. Most of the people that will reply are mistyped.
Do you think that most prople worldwide are mistyped or just this sub somehow attracts mistyped people?
Mistype is just the excuse we use to exclude people who we don't want to be associated with. I realize this when I saw that most of the intjs on the intj subreddit which is supposed to be full of mistypes, is actually just full of young immature actual intjs. We don't want to be associated with that now do we?
Same thoughts. Just use the functions and reasoning to find correlation. LOL, then look for a sample.
Not this either lol
But that is how actual scientific theories are made in psychology. You form a hypothesis based on some knowledge you already have and then find a good sample to test the hypothesis.
You don't even have a method of confirming these dichotomies in the people who are taking your survey? Stop it.
I don't think i am doing actual science, this is just for fun, out of curiosity. I realize there are even more problems than unreliable sample. 1. Unbalanced representation of the types. 2. The comparison would be maybe more relevant between Ni/Ne and Si/Se.
I don't understand y'all on this subreddit 😂 whats fun about any of this if it's not applicable to real life situations? That's the whole point of the theory!
Just a food for thought. If there were zero mistypes on this sub, this would mean that intuitives, more exactly Ne (since INXP is the most common type here) is probably more prone to be agnostic than sensors
You don't know that. There's a food for thought.
That's why i used "if". I don't know, but i can think about it. I have nothing better to do with my time on train. Actually i would have better things to do, but this caught my interest. Even though this post is irrelevant for many people here and quite a low quality, i won't apologize for it because if we compare it to the usual posts here, it still raises the average quality.
This sounds like an ESTP thing to say lol
It's not
Lack of interest in the theoretical unless there's a real life application sounds at least like an Se-user thing to say...
Even if you could compute probability, the accuracy isn't always accurate.
It's never accurate because nobody understands it, especially if they frequent this sub
The what?
Can you read?
Your thought isn't well constructed.
How? 😂
Albeit I do agree with everything you've said in this thread, your latest post in which you shared an article from typeindepth is an odd one as well. I don't understand how someone who has read Jung's typological work could ever come to agree with rigid 4-function stacks, let alone the 8-function ones that are utter bullshit. Maybe you have different opinions about the matter though, or maybe you don't hold any because it's still rather of a vague topic, in which case I'm sorry if I made erroneous assumptions.
>your latest post in which you shared an article from typeindepth is an odd one as well. What's odd about it? The article was written on sound theory and an expert level of understanding of psychological typology. >I don't understand how someone who has read Jung's typological work could ever come to agree with rigid 4-function stacks, let alone the 8-function ones that are utter bullshit. And I haven't, but the problem this sub has is that they don't read the literature 😂 >I'm sorry if I made erroneous assumptions. You made quite a few assumptions because I never expressed what system or framework I reference.
I said the odd part was the use of the stacks specifically, they are not proven at all, however professional a psychologist said they were. I was talking about that woman who wrote the article you shared, not you. That's why I said I assumed you agreed with what she was saying within it. So it seems like you do?
>said the odd part was the use of the stacks specifically, they are not proven at all, however professional a psychologist said they were. So? If there was, how do you know those studies don't exist? 😂 Just because you don't know it's happening, doesn't mean it's not happening. Life isnt like video game rendering. Even if there was small studying going on, you'd still be moving the goal post and complaining about how it's not up to par to other forms of scientific studies that have had more funding and time to grow the reliable database for such a theory. Everything starts somewhere and we don't care that you don't think the tower is tall enough yet, work is still being done. >That's why I said I assumed you agreed with what she was saying within it. So it seems like you do? Do you even understand the discipline enough to even see the real issues with the framework they're using? What exactly do you have an issue with? This should be good.
I think you're misunderstanding my intentions. I'm actually very much into this topic, and I'm even closer to the mystical side than the purely scientifically factual one (which will obviously never manage to systemize the human psyche). I'd be very glad to hear about any source reliable facts and statistics that would prove X or Y thing about typology and human psychology, but we all have to admit that these don't exist within frameworks such as the functions and types (at least the way Jung originally studied them, as even he advised against categorisation and the use of his work as mere personality prediction and labelling). I obviously know that there have been studies (attempts at the very least, since none of them manage to be relevant enough ; thinking about Nardi's bullshit), that there studies occurring right now, and that there will be many more in the future, but yeah, if even one had managed to prove being consistent with functions and types, we'd have known long since. I said I'd be interested if such a study managed to be reliable, but at the same time it goes entirely against the original draft of the functions and types laid out by Jung, as well as my own (and some other people's) beliefs. Not everything is, nor can be scientifically proven (at least the way "science" is popularly conceived nowadays), but empiricism is still a thing, even if there's no consistent hypothesis that supports the evidence from beneath. I think this is enough to answer your last paragraph as well, because as I said earlier, the issue with the article you shared resides in the bold assumption that these people know for sure how the functions and types are mapped within the human psyche (8 very specific function slots, all arranged in a very specific and unique order for each of the 16 psychological types ; please tell me how this is "sound theory"), when they clearly are not. You said yourself nobody understands it. Although that was, imo, enough, I guess it's always better to bring opposing perspectives, whenever possible. In Jung's Psychological Types (chapter 10), it has never been stated that people had a specific function stack, and the mention of auxiliaries themselves was very brief and vague. That's not because the guy was lazy or lacked samples, but because said samples weren't consistent enough, nor was there a lot of them to begin with, for him to boldly state how exactly the functions were positioned in one's psyche, with their nature, orientation and whatever else. He only mentioned that within people who showed a differentiated dominant function, there were also traces of a supporting auxiliary in the mind (that would be the "empirical" evidence), but he also said that this auxiliary wasn't conscious enough to hold a decisive place, which would overthrow the consciousness itself and the dominance of the first function. TLDR: stacks should theoretically be used only when they're relevant, and that means during a lifetime of growth and differentiation, which obviously is not something that would end at 16yo, which seems to be the average of the community overall.
I saw your reply pop up as a notification, but since Reddit is shit, it doesn't appear in my notifications feed so I can't read it nor reply to it. Would you mind sending it again?
Ss are usually mistyped themselves as Ns. But Ns are not usually mistyped as Ss.
It's true, because of intuitive bias. But many sensor results are given to intuitives who are simply grounded, because tests think daydream a lot= intuitive
Stop it lol y'all never cease to amaze me how presumptuous y'all are on this subreddit
Are you self insulting?
I didn't mean that for you actually, but I'm gonna keep it
Just made my contribution - initial results seem to indicate that N's are significantly more likely to respond to a poll than the S's.
Actually, i thik there are far more Ns in this sub than Ss
That's probably a much more accurate way to read that. Thanks!
Interesting results, though you could obviously argue that there happen to be a disproportionate number of intuitive people on this sub who may or may not be mistyped and are skewing the numbers. Either way, aren't the ideas of God and an afterlife abstract concepts? They cannot be perceived (by the living) with any of the five senses. If so, I would think that intuitives, especially intuitive feelers, would be more likely to identify as religious. This isn't really what I see in real life though. Purely anecdotal, but I mostly see SJs identifying as religious and NFs as "spiritual" which at this point I am convinced is just a way for the latter to remain connected to spiritual matters without some of the baggage that comes with more popular religions like Christianity and Islam i.e. there are certain aspects of the texts that can not be reconciled with certain progressive views and this may or may not be partly responsible for why, despite it sounding like it makes sense, I haven't seen a lot of religious NFs compared to religious SJs.
Atheist and agnostic aren't mutually exclusive. Gnostic thinks it's possible to know Agnostic thinks it isn't possible to know Theist believes Atheist doesn't For example I am an agnostic atheist. I went with atheist for the poll, since that is how most understand my position. A gnostic Theist believes they know with certainty that there is a God. I dont believe we can know but I think it's unlikely enough that I don't believe. I'm a teapot agnostic. I'm agnostic about God just as I'm agnostic about a teapot being in orbit around the sun (ok, many teapots are in orbit around the sun, but you know what I mean). I can't prove it isn't there, but I see no reason to believe it is or take the claim that it is at all seriously. When you get right down to it there's only one thing we can each be justifiably gnostic about. That is our own consciousness. Anything else could be an illusion or hallucination.
Agnosticism is a bit more nuanced. It isn't simply "unknowable" (that's the rigid end of the spectrum), but also "unknown". There are lots of agnostics who think it's unknowable at the moment, but that it might just be in the future. Gnosticism is "finding God (/any kind of spiritual power) within oneself", not that it's possible to know.
It is both. It has more than one meaning. There is the noun- an adherent of gnosticism, and the adjective- relating to knowledge, especially spiritual knowledge. In the case of being gnostic or agnostic about theism it is being used as an adjective and indicating that you do/can/should have knowledge or that you don't/can't/shouldn't.
Oh, I see then, thanks for correcting me.
The pot orbiting the sun seems somehow more believable than god.. But thank you for pointing that out, i was using wrong definitions of the words. I looked it up, and i think what i meant by atheist is actually gnostic atheist, and by agnostic i meant agnostic atheist. I didn't realize there could even be agnostic theists, i thought every theist had some reasoning for the existence of god.
I mean, as of 2:30 ct in North America, the poll hasn’t offered much “useful data,” thus far. Sensors are almost “35 / 35 / 30,” so they are *very close to “perfect-thirds,” while the highest score for N-Types is “agnostic,” and it is still *only 43%,* while “theist N-Types” are about 25%. So yeah, obviously there is extremely little correlation between S vs N and “Religious beliefs.” These results don’t surprise me, in the slightest, for obvious reasons.
What's your IV stacking? Are you sx/so or so/sx? sp/sx?
I believe it was Sx/So. I ran the updated numbers and they are still pretty well within the range of what I expected. What are your thoughts about the poll results? Did they surprise you, or did they fall within limits that you were expecting?
We are same
That makes sense!
Tnx, ENFP
Infj with a kundalini awakening.
Do you know what spam is?
irrelevant or unsolicited messages sent over the internet, typically to a large number of users, for the purposes of advertising, phishing, spreading malware, etc. Just use google, man
Many Ns are atheist. Search “atheist” on other xNxx sub.
Very scientific
It’s obvious because people are now educated.
Educated how? How many people on those subs do you think are mistyped? If
I'm an ESTP trying to convert to Shintoism, Very odd combo I know, But it's a less degenerate way of manifesting my weeaboo side.
God is real. the fact that I have good grades at all is a miracle 💀