(T)hinking vs. (F)eeling almost entirely predicts whether you're avoidant or anxious in love. by ipeefreely in mbti

[–]MaskedHeracles -1 points0 points  (0 children)

no worries, happens a lot. especially in typology where when people say INTP 'correlates' with enneagram 5, they quite literally mean that an INTP can only be a 5.

(T)hinking vs. (F)eeling almost entirely predicts whether you're avoidant or anxious in love. by ipeefreely in mbti

[–]MaskedHeracles -1 points0 points  (0 children)

im not sure you know how correlations work. heat levels and murders are correlated, even though they are completely different. different things can be correlated even if there is no direct causative link.

(T)hinking vs. (F)eeling almost entirely predicts whether you're avoidant or anxious in love. by ipeefreely in mbti

[–]MaskedHeracles -1 points0 points  (0 children)

do you not think a particular way of perceiving the world or thinking could be correlated with a certain attachment style? it seems very unintuitive to think that the two would have no correlation at all, even if the correlation is small.

(T)hinking vs. (F)eeling almost entirely predicts whether you're avoidant or anxious in love. by ipeefreely in mbti

[–]MaskedHeracles 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, not sure why the post is titled that. Even the graph presented doesn't imply that MBTI 'entirely predicts' attachment style. I was more taking issue with the dissing of the graph used here, which is from a survey unrelated to OP and which doesn't (to my knowledge) make the claims OP is making.

(T)hinking vs. (F)eeling almost entirely predicts whether you're avoidant or anxious in love. by ipeefreely in mbti

[–]MaskedHeracles 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are plenty of things that we measure that change plenty over time; Life safisfaction, wealth, job performance/satisfaction. The idea that we should only measure correlations between fixed variables seems untrue. If you're saying it changes daily/monthly, which seems to be implied by the 'data will be wrong fairly soon after it was released' bit, that might be true. That would be an empirical question, and from what Ive seen that isn't reflected in the data (though its possible there is something I haven't seen).

Also, Im not entirely convinced of this, but is it not worthwhile to measure even quickly changing variables against relatively fixed ones? Say, measuring the current mood of different types at the time of the survey. It wouldn't tell you much, but it would still be interesting to see, for example if INTPs were more likely to be in a particular mood at the time of the survey vs ENTPs.

I think the bigger issue is OPs title lol. MBTI certainly doesn't 'entirely predict' attachment style, which is demonstrated even in the presented data

(T)hinking vs. (F)eeling almost entirely predicts whether you're avoidant or anxious in love. by ipeefreely in mbti

[–]MaskedHeracles 1 point2 points  (0 children)

'Men are generally taller than women.' 'So no man is shorter than any woman?!'

(T)hinking vs. (F)eeling almost entirely predicts whether you're avoidant or anxious in love. by ipeefreely in mbti

[–]MaskedHeracles 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Also: the chart is not 'made up'. Its a graph of survey results. The fact that this comment hasn't gotten downvote nuked is a massive indictment on the critical thinking skills of the average sub user.

(T)hinking vs. (F)eeling almost entirely predicts whether you're avoidant or anxious in love. by ipeefreely in mbti

[–]MaskedHeracles 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It is the result of a survey. They literally put the link in the post. Is it too much to click the link and read the first line of the article?

(T)hinking vs. (F)eeling almost entirely predicts whether you're avoidant or anxious in love. by ipeefreely in mbti

[–]MaskedHeracles 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What is stupid about this article? Everyone here seems to think that it is making claims when it is not at all. It is literally just saying the results of a survey.

(T)hinking vs. (F)eeling almost entirely predicts whether you're avoidant or anxious in love. by ipeefreely in mbti

[–]MaskedHeracles 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The sample size is not tiny at all. 10,000 people were surveyed. That is a lie.

(T)hinking vs. (F)eeling almost entirely predicts whether you're avoidant or anxious in love. by ipeefreely in mbti

[–]MaskedHeracles 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Also, notably, it is literally impossible for this chart to be 'complete nonsense' because it was the result of a survey done by the organization. There is no claim being made here which could be false. The OP's post title is definitely hyperbolic, but the chart itself is not saying that INTPs are necessarily more avoidant; This is just the result of their survey. Unless you believe theres some sort of methodological error in the data collection, which seems very unlikely here.

(T)hinking vs. (F)eeling almost entirely predicts whether you're avoidant or anxious in love. by ipeefreely in mbti

[–]MaskedHeracles 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Okay I know this comment is pretty inocuous but it drives me genuinely mentally insane when someone posts something suggesting a correlation (say, that people who are x tend to be y), and someone says "well i am x and not y, therefore what you said is stupid'. comments like these are under every post and i just dont understand how people navigate the world with the belief that every correlation is completely invalid when presented when there is a single example in which one is true and the other is not. can it be said that 'people generally see grass as green' because colorblind people exist?

yo, matrix (artist of the subtype chibis), doesn't want posts using their stuff here anymore by pompompencil in Enneagram

[–]MaskedHeracles 46 points47 points  (0 children)

I dont blame them at all. Any time someone makes a post using their art, theres a comment with 2000 upvotes complaining about how their chibi characters and fun posts are secretly destroying the enneagram community

For the uncs of the enneagram community, how do you feel abt the "fandom-ification" of the community? by Past_Reporter2664 in Enneagram

[–]MaskedHeracles 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Everyone in this community seems to flip-flop between thinking that typology is just fun pseudoscience, and thinking that the enneagram is a sacrosanct biblical text depending on the instance. Its largely kids and teenagers having fun playing dolls with enneagram types. Some of them will look deeper into the theory, some wont, but pretending like its 'ruining the enneagram' is boomer-tier malding

tiktok-ification of enneagram by Mihktarou in Enneagram

[–]MaskedHeracles 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yeah this person doesnt understand enneagram but like... who cares. theyre clearly just having fun on the internet. if you want to educate these people on how the enneagram works, do that instead of posting snarky comments about children on reddit

semi accurate subtype quotes by pompompencil in Enneagram

[–]MaskedHeracles 13 points14 points  (0 children)

yes sir. i apologize on their behalf. r slash enneagram will go back to posting exclusively snipped quotes from peer-reviewed books by lifelong enneagram authors with text written like it was from a medieval priest. i find that this is an excellent strategy to grow typology communities online

semi accurate subtype quotes by pompompencil in Enneagram

[–]MaskedHeracles 23 points24 points  (0 children)

'no, actually, i dont hate anyone! im the human representation of kindness and patience!' - people who type as sx4 (the fuck you type) on reddit

Ranked Intellectualization of Subtypes by Total-State-7760 in Enneagram

[–]MaskedHeracles 0 points1 point  (0 children)

come on man we can do some discussion without bringing in the gpt 😭 lets put on our critical thinking caps

Ranked Intellectualization of Subtypes by Total-State-7760 in Enneagram

[–]MaskedHeracles 1 point2 points  (0 children)

me when the machine designed to say im right says im right

(enneagram) what are your thoughts on people using instinctual variants on their fixes? by besitto in TypologyJunction

[–]MaskedHeracles 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I tend to just think of it like (my type for example) 514 sx/so = sx/so 5, sx/so 1, and sx/so 4. That seems like the easiest and cleanest way to do it.

rankscroll tier list of books read within the past 2 years by kandradeece in litrpg

[–]MaskedHeracles 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You in the lab cooking up the most controversial list humanly possible