The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) assessment is a psychometric questionnaire designed to measure psychological preferences in how people perceive the world and make decisions.[1]:1 These preferences were extrapolated from the typological theories proposed by Carl Gustav Jung and first published in his 1921 book Psychological Types (English edition, 1923[2]). Jung theorized that there are four principal psychological functions by which we experience the world: sensation, intuition, feeling, and thinking.[3] One of these four functions is dominant most of the time.

********

As the MBTI Manual states, the indicator "is designed to implement a theory; therefore the theory must be understood to understand the MBTI".[7]:1

Fundamental to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is the theory of psychological type as originally developed by Carl Jung.[1]:xiii Jung proposed the existence of two dichotomous pairs of cognitive functions:

The "rational" (judging) functions: thinking and feeling
The "irrational" (perceiving) functions: sensing and intuition

Jung believed that for every person each of the functions are expressed primarily in either an introverted or extraverted form.[1]:17 From Jung's original concepts, Briggs and Myers developed their own theory of psychological type, described below, on which the MBTI is based.

********

Jung's typological model regards psychological type as similar to left or right handedness: individuals are either born with, or develop, certain preferred ways of perceiving and deciding. The MBTI sorts some of these psychological differences into four opposite pairs, or dichotomies, with a resulting 16 possible psychological types. None of these types are better or worse; however, Briggs and Myers theorized that individuals naturally prefer one overall combination of type differences.[1]:9 In the same way that writing with the left hand is hard work for a right-hander, so people tend to find using their opposite psychological preferences more difficult, even if they can become more proficient (and therefore behaviorally flexible) with practice and development.

The 16 types are typically referred to by an abbreviation of four letters—the initial letters of each of their four type preferences (except in the case of intuition, which uses the abbreviation N to distinguish it from Introversion).

Magnoliaa:
Bluezy13, are you into things like this?

Bluezy13:
Not really.
I believe it is erroneous to classify or even try to classify flawlessly human behaviors...as a function of personality... either for eductive, moral, formal, informal or social purposes.
There must be conflict of perceptions.

Magnoliaa:


Hmm.

Bluezy13:


Ehmm...

According to "Introduction to Psychology", the Mind is unfathomable, indescribable, cannot be located, it may be regarded as existing and at the same time maybe regarded as non-existing. It is nowhere but it is perceived to be somewhere.
Due to the ambiguity in defining the mind with all certainty, psychologists resorted to studying human behaviors instead in an attempt to predict the mind.
These individuals of various disciplines came up with their classifications of personalities depending on their perceptions. And these classifications conflict with...and overlap...each other.

For instance, without mentioning the names involved; we have the Introverts, extroverts, ambiverts, Omniverts, the the Id, Ego, the INTPs, INFPs INTJ etc. all these brought about in an attempt to flawlessly deduce, confine and predict man. But irrespective of the classifications, there are always limitations(which are too numerous to be overlooked) which a careful scrutiny will reveal the worthlessness of the classifications in the first place.
Not that I am criticizing the works of erudite scholars, but I choose not to lend realistic credence to it. Of course they have to be there in the pages of books for people to study. Many a times their predictions are wrong especially in the psychiatric field.

Forgive me if I'm being judgemental but I think it is necessary I point it out. It is the way I see it.

LordTheus:

Point taken. As you pointed out, the mind, inasmuch as it is an emergent property of the brain since it cannot exist without, is a most abstract element of human nature. However I'd like to also point out that the MBTI, like all other theories, is simply a mechanism for understanding something scientific and describing it in a helpful and often metaphorical way. You could call I a tool. A very useful tool actually. However it's not the best we have and we may develop something better as science continues to evolve. Assertions made in MBTI do not translate to scientific laws. To expect any theory to have some sort of concrete evidence that people fit into 16 types, or a known scientific fact before considering its validity doesn't even make sense.

And just because it describes the types in archetypes does not mean it's inaccurate or "putting people in boxes". No one who really understands the theory believes everyone is the archetype of their personality. The descriptions aren't even entirely accurate and you can recognize yourself in other types. For example, I usually test myself and get INTP (A/T) as my type, and I've found that I relate very easily to the description of this type. However I also sometimes relate strongly to ENTP, INTJ and INFP in terms of how they're described.

MBTI is often misconstrued as describing archetypes, when it reality it's talking about preferences. A lot of people use MBTI a bit like astrology, giving their own interpretation of types and functions. All those things are mixed up, and then you have confused definitions and descriptions. And when you are confused, you cannot know what is wrong and what is right.

LordTheus:

Point taken. As you pointed out, the mind, inasmuch as it is an emergent property of the brain since it cannot exist without, is a most abstract element of human nature.

Bluezy13:


Don't you think it is controversial to describe the mind as an emergent "property" of the brain since for instance;
If a B is a property of A, B should have specific quality and/or characteristics of A. This further means that the manifestation of B is dependent on A, therefore B can be predictable and if I am to move a little further, by reason of being a characteristic property a of A, B can be known with certainty.

In this light, if B can be known with certainty, therefore B can be described with specific qualities (including its locality).
But the above analysis as a subject of study negates the existence of the Mind...after all, the mind is regarded as an independent substance/entity. If it then negates the existence of the Mind, it therefore means that the Mind is not an emergent property of the Brain.

Perhaps, Sperry had a more elaborate explanation to give that we are yet to know.

The cerebrum is divided into four lobes: frontal, parietal, occipital and temporal.

Frontal lobe
Personality, behavior, emotions
Judgment, planning, problem solving
Speech: speaking and writing (Broca’s area)
Body movement (motor strip)
Intelligence, concentration, self awareness

Parietal lobe
Interprets language, words
Sense of touch, pain, temperature (sensory strip)
Interprets signals from vision, hearing, motor, sensory and memory
Spatial and visual perception

Occipital lobe
Interprets vision (color, light, movement)

Temporal lobe
Understanding language (Wernicke’s area)
Memory
Hearing
Sequencing and organization

LordTheus:


It may not be as controversial as you suppose it is. You see, the workings of the human mind actually have very plausible explanations in contemporary neuroscience which proves that the human mind might not be as incomprehensible as we make it out to be.

The human brain is an extremely complex physical organ and is possibly the most complicated stuff in the universe. It's composed of billions of neurons all of which are massively interconnected with the associated structures, the axons and dendrites and such.

However, the brain is divided into discrete structures that all have specific purposes and these are cross-wired with each other as well. We can observe quite easily now how specific areas of the brain are responsible for specific actions and thoughts, and we can also observe the deficits that occur when those structures and areas are damaged by stroke or accident. Given all of this, it's clear that there is sufficient evidence to support the idea that the mind is an emergent property of brain activity.

Refer to the attached picture

https://mayfieldclinic.com/pe-anatbrain.htm

The brain evolved over millions of years with four basic steps built bottom to top, and back to front, starting with the brain stem and spinal chord. Next, the Cerebellum, the Limbic System, and the Cerebrum were added. It then evolved the further lobes which developed specialist functions. These functions work on brain circuitry, and the biochemistry of neurotransmitters.

There is no evidence whatever of any outside influence on the mind (consciousness). No "soul" or "universal consciousness" or any other such fanciful notion. You can check out the link above if you want to read more. Neuroscience does actually give decent explanations for the basic workings of conscious, subconscious, or unconscious brains.

Bluezy13:


Define the Mind.

mind
/mʌɪnd/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought.
"a lot of thoughts ran through my mind"

LordTheus:


Here is a quick definition from Oxford

Bluezy13:


Define Element.

LordTheus:

Of the top of my head, I'd say it's a basic/fundamental part of a whole

Bluezy13:
From your definition,
If the Mind is a basic part of a whole of a person. That means that a person...a human being...is made up of the mind. It inadvertently means that the mind generates a person...a human being. It also means that the mind can be located..and according to you...in the brain.

(1) Where exactly in the brain is the Mind located ?

(2) How do you explain an intangible thing as the Mind being a part of a tangible thing as a human being ?

Bluezy13:


Now according to you;
The Mind is the basic/fundamental part of a whole of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought.

From your definition,
If the Mind is a basic part of a whole of a person. That means that a person...a human being...is made up of the mind. It inadvertently means that the mind generates a person...a human being. It also means that the mind can be located...and according to you...in the brain.
This means that the basic part of a human being is in the brain...is located in the brain.
Now the questions are;
(1) Where exactly in the brain is the Mind located ?
(2) How do you explain an intangible thing as the Mind being a part of a tangible thing as a human being ? This is because inferring from your definition(s), the mind is just like the liver is a part of a human being only that it is basic...more like the cell.
You are indirectly relating the Mind to be a cell in the brain.
After all, we were taught that the cell is the basic/fundamental unit of life. But the cell can be located and defined flawlessly.

If no plausible explanation is offered, it means that your definition of the mind and/or Element is/are wrong.

LordTheus:


When I say the element of an object, what I'm trying to refer to is the attributes of an object, be it tangible or not.

Bluezy13:
The Mind is an independent phenomenon of its own, functioning distinctly depending on the body it embodies.

LordTheus:


As far as I know, there exists no evidence for this assertion. It is a bare claim without any support. Prove me wrong.

Note that I have already demonstrated that the mind is indeed an emerging property of the human brain using traditional neuroscience. If you insist that the mind doesn't require a brain to manifest, you'll have to illustrate this for me using objective evidence

Bluezy13:


Can point out where I opined that the mind literally doesn't require the brain to function ??

The Mind is an independent phenomenon of its own, functioning distinctly depending on the body it embodies.

Bluezy13:


Can you point out where I opined that the mind literally doesn't require the brain to function ?

And if in your opinion, the mind requires the brain to function, that means the Mind is not a part of the brain but rather it is attached to the brain.

If on the other hand, you maintain that the Mind is in the brain, then "where" exactly in the brain is the Mind ?
It is a simple question.

LordTheus:




Now unless I'm mistaken, please explain what you mean when you say the mind is an "independent phenomenon". Independent of what?

LordTheus:


Done in my previous post



Your issue here is you are taking a dualistic approach, divorcing the mind and body as two separate things. The mind can NOT exist without a body - specifically without a brain. And like I said, if you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be glad if you presented it



I literally stated the mind is not a spatial phenomenon, so this question is built on a misrepresentation of my position. You're treating the mind as if it were some sort of object, or maybe you're imagining it as something from an ethereal realm. It is literally a result of processes in the human brain.

LordTheus:


Done in my previous post



Your issue here is you are taking a dualistic approach, divorcing the mind and body as two separate things. The mind can NOT exist without a body - specifically without a brain. And like I said, if you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be glad if you presented it

Bluezy13:


Quite interesting that you observed the "independent" without observing the "depending" attached to it in the same context. Isn't it ?

The Mind is an independent phenomenon of its own, functioning distinctly depending on the body it embodies.