[ SECRET POST #3493 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3493 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 22 secrets from Secret Submission Post #499.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Introversion

[(Anonymous)]

As someone who definitely veers on being introverted (I've independently earned the nickname "space cadet" from multiple people...) the pop obsession with "introversion" and "personalities" are hilarious. Whether it's introversion or that damned Meyers-Briggs test, it's ridiculous self-diagnosis specialness.

Not to mention, most people are both extroverted and introverted, depending on who they are with or what the situation is or how much caffeine they've had.

Re: Introversion

[(Anonymous)]

It's not self diagnosis specialness unless you make it self diagnosis specialness.

The thing with MBTI is that, like. Some people take it was too seriously and assign too much validity to it and are weird ass special snowflakes about it, yes. That does not mean that it has zero validity. The one does not follow from the other. In my view, its a very imperfect tool for measuring personality, but it does measure real aspects of personality.

Introversion is a perfect example. Are people black-and-white introverts and extroverts? No. But people do vary along that axis - being variously more or less introverted or extroverted - and it's not absurd to talk about that.

In closing, we should probably move over to Big 5 personality traits, which are better arranged and at least marginally experimentally validated and naturally work in a less black and white way. But everyone is more familiar with MBTI and it's probably 80% the same thing anyway so fuck it.

Re: Introversion

[(Anonymous)]

It doesn't really measure personality at all. For one, it wasn't designed by actual professionals and it isn't used by professionals. Most importantly, you CAN'T self-diagnose yourself - with even (or especially) a personality - for a number of reasons: the most importantly, you are completely biased. A question like "what would you do in this situation?" will yield results of how the person likes to think they would react.

Meyers-Briggs is not a real thing off the internet, and no mental health specialist worth their license would give it the time of day.

I agree that people veer on an axis as far as introversion/extroversion goes. I never said they didn't. A large amount of personality traits are situation-dependent. People aren't robots that only ever act a single way.

Re: Introversion

[(Anonymous)]

First of all, we should probably be talking about self evaluation not self diagnosis here, yeah? It's a question of self-knowledge not of illness.

Second I think any kind of self-evaluation or self-knowledge is going to be an imperfect abstraction of a messy, complex underlying reality. It's no different with this. The ambiguity and uncertainty is greater, and the certainty that can be assigned to it is less, but that doesn't mean that it's zero.

Third, I think there is such a thing as personality. I think it's complex and I agree - as I said before - it's not a black and white thing and people can act differently under different circumstances. It would be stupid to say that someone who is labeled as introverted must therefore act as an Introversion Robot. Of course not. But people have, in broad terms, different ways of approaching the world and reacting to stimuli, and I think that the things tracked by MBTI are some - not all, and not perfectly tracked by any means - of the axes along which those reactions and approaches differ.

So that's really the most I'm arguing for: the MBTI is an imperfect attempt to track a few aspects of personality, but they are real aspects of personality. People don't take it with the appropriate size of grain of salt. That doesn't mean it's total nonsense.

Re: Introversion

[(Anonymous)]

The counseling and career center at my university (and many others) pays money to be able to offer the MBTI test to students. The full test, which is exhaustingly long and repetitive in order to counter the test-taker bias you're describing. Businesses also pay money to use it in training seminars. No, it's not the end-all-be-all, but to say that no one off the internet takes it seriously is just plain ignorant.

Re: Introversion

[(Anonymous)]

It's not a real psychology thing no matter who pays money for it.

Businesses and schools use pop- and pseudo-psychology all the time. That doesn't mean it's something the APA recognizes or that psychologists are trained to administer.