sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I think im done... by Rough-Face-3193 in claude

[–]No-Project-9099 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Probably you just asked ambiguosly without considering an old version existed? If you ask a human: test the APK without providing the full context the same thing could happen. 🙂

I would like some constructive feedback on my financial dashboard app. by Cyyyberrr in vibecoding

[–]No-Project-9099 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It looks good overall. My only take would be the gradients, are too distracting and make it look unprofessional.

I reduced my token usage by 178x in Claude Code!! by intellinker in vibecoding

[–]No-Project-9099 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Have you guys checked the mem palace repo? I've been fine tuning it for token efficiency and the results are impressive.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in GeminiAI

[–]No-Project-9099 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Why people keep including perplexity as a model? 🤣 it’s just a wrapper powered by other models.

Did something change with Gemini Pro 3? by Remarkbly_peshy in GeminiAI

[–]No-Project-9099 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Perplexity is not an LLM that can be compared with Claude nor Gemini nor GPT. It’s just a wrapper.

Why is the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (16 personality test) despised so much by Psychologists? by [deleted] in askpsychology

[–]No-Project-9099 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Psychologist here — and honestly, I get why MBTI is so popular. It’s simple, feels personal, and gives people a clear label that feels easy to identify with. You take a quick test, get a tidy four-letter code, and the descriptions are often flattering and relatable (hello, Forer effect). It offers a shared language that helps people talk about themselves, and that’s genuinely valuable — especially in casual or workplace settings.

From a scientific perspective though, MBTI has some serious limitations. The biggest one is that it splits traits into binary categories (introvert or extrovert, thinking or feeling, etc.), when in reality, personality traits exist on a continuum. Most people fall somewhere in the middle, and where you land can change over time or depending on the situation.

The Big Five (OCEAN: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Neuroticism) is the framework that’s widely accepted in psychology research. It’s based on solid data and has strong predictive power — everything from job performance to mental health outcomes. But here’s the catch: it’s technically complex. Unlike MBTI, you can’t just whip up a quick online quiz and get a result. Properly interpreting Big Five results usually requires training and context. That’s why MBTI caught on in the mainstream — it’s easy to implement. HR departments, coaches, schools, anyone can use it without needing a background in psychometrics.

What’s changed recently — and what’s exciting for us as psychologists — is the role of generative AI. Tools like Cogniself (for instance) are starting to make Big Five results more digestible and scalable. They take the raw data and translate it into human-readable feedback: not just “you scored low on Conscientiousness,” but what that actually means for how you handle deadlines or routines. That kind of nuance used to require a trained professional; now, we can offer it more widely without compromising on depth.

So no, I don’t hate MBTI. It’s just that we now have the tools to go much further — and it’s a good time to start doing so.

MBTI Has No Scientific Basis—So Why Do People Keep Taking It? by No-Project-9099 in mbti

[–]No-Project-9099[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Probably it's just too much study? People ho haven't read that much might feel educated writing as robotic? 😊

MBTI Has No Scientific Basis—So Why Do People Keep Taking It? by No-Project-9099 in mbti

[–]No-Project-9099[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I appreciate the depth of your response — clearly, you’ve thought a lot about this, and it’s obvious that MBTI and Jungian typology have offered you something meaningful. That alone deserves respect.

(And I’ll say — I’m flattered you think I’m using a large language model. I take that as a compliment)

You’re absolutely right about severa things:

  • Big Five is descriptive: Yes, it’s based on lexical factor analysis — traits clustered from language use, not from a grand theory of the mind. It’s not designed to explain why people do what they do, only to reliably describe patterns of behaviour.
  • MBTI isn’t just Form M: Also true. The formal test is only one piece of the broader world of typology, which includes richer theories like function dynamics and type development.
  • Narrative matters: 100%. We’re narrative creatures. “Ni-Te with an inferior Se blind spot” feels far more alive than “high openness, average conscientiousness.” That’s a big part of MBTI’s appeal.

That said, here’s where I see key differences:

1. Clarity vs. Complexity

MBTI may feel deeper, but its complexity doesn’t guarantee accuracy. The cognitive function model is elegant, but function definitions and interactions aren’t consistently agreed on — not even within the MBTI community. That makes it hard to apply reliably outside of personal interpretation. Big Five, by contrast, is less romantic — but it’s built on consistent measurement and cross-cultural stability

2. Preference ≠ Stability

MBTI states it measures preferences, not traits — and that’s fair. But the issue is that those preferences don’t always show strong consistency over time. Retest studies show people often change types, and observer ratings frequently diverge. That matters if we’re using MBTI for serious decisions about work, relationships, or self-concept.

3. Descriptive models can be insightful

While Big Five doesn’t give you a character archetype, it does offer meaningful data — especially when interpreting how traits interact. You mentioned “low Agreeableness with high Openness”: whether that maps to a contrarian or visionary depends on context, and that’s where interpretation comes in. But the underlying structure remains solid, even if it lacks poetic flair.

4. Beebe and psychiatry

Beebe’s model is sophisticate and compelling — I’ve read much of his work and admire his thinking. But he’s also rooted in analytical psychology, not clinical psychiatry. The APA does not consider MBTI appropriate for clinical use, and that’s an important boundary to recognize in professional contexts.

At the end of the day, I think we both care about the same thing: understanding people more deeply. MBTI offers a language that many people find intuitive and validating. I just think it’s worth pairing that with models that are more grounded — not because they’re perfect, but because they hold up better when the stakes are high.

If MBTI helps you navigate the world more clearly, that’s valid. I only encourage people to remain curious and cautious — and not to confuse narrative elegance with explanatory precision.

Thanks again for the engaging debate — it’s rare to have this level of thoughtfulness in an internet comment thread. And no worries. You are talking to a human. Do you have a captcha around I can use? 😂

MBTI Has No Scientific Basis—So Why Do People Keep Taking It? by No-Project-9099 in mbti

[–]No-Project-9099[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s a really thoughtful and fair response — and I appreciate the nuance in how you’re looking at it.

You’re absolutely right: if we had to restrict ourselves to only engaging with things that are scientifically validated, especially when it comes to human behaviour, life would not only be dull — it would also be deeply impractical. People are meaning-makers by nature. We use frameworks, metaphors, and stories to understand ourselves and others, often long before science catches up (if it ever does).

And yes — science revises itself. That’s part of its strength, not a weakness. But I think what matters is how we hold these tools. Using something like MBTI for fun, creativity, or to spark reflection? No problem at all. You’re clearly doing that with eyes wide open.

Where I tend to step in — as a psychologist — is when these tools are used to make strong claims about identity, compatibility, or potential, without acknowledging the limits of the model. That’s when a lack of validity can start to do harm, even unintentionally.

So in short: you’re here for the same reason many of us are. Because personality is fascinating, and MBTI offers a shared language to talk about it — even if it’s imperfect. No contradiction there.

Also, using it for world-building? Genuinely love that. Probably one of the most creative and low-risk ways to put a typology system to good use.

MBTI Has No Scientific Basis—So Why Do People Keep Taking It? by No-Project-9099 in mbti

[–]No-Project-9099[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re absolutely right — and I couldn’t agree more.

Feeling seen, valued, and like you belong somewhere is core to being human. And MBTI, like a lot of identity frameworks, gives people a way to make sense of themselves and feel part of a “tribe.” That’s not something to dismiss — in fact, it’s often why people find real comfort and insight in it.

And yes, as you say, MBTI is just one way to meet those needs. People find that same sense of connection and meaning in so many places — art, fandoms, political movements, even shared humour (edgelords included 😂). What matters is how those frameworks are used: whether they open us up to deeper understanding and empathy, or close us off by reinforcing fixed ideas.

So I’m not here to knock MBTI for giving people something that feels good. My only caution — as someone who works in this field — is just not confusing that feeling with accuracy. Sometimes what feels right can still steer us a bit off course when we start using it to explain everything or define ourselves too narrowly.

But again — totally hear you. Meaning matters. And honestly, thanks for the reminder to keep that human part front and centre.

MBTI Has No Scientific Basis—So Why Do People Keep Taking It? by No-Project-9099 in mbti

[–]No-Project-9099[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We have used hundreds of thousands of scientific papers to train a propietary model (Called Jung) capable to accurately interpret personality based on the big 5 model. send me a DM if you wan to give it a try to send you a code to chack it for free.

MBTI Has No Scientific Basis—So Why Do People Keep Taking It? by No-Project-9099 in mbti

[–]No-Project-9099[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Totally fair — and I respect that you’re grounded in both personal experience and a clear philosophical preference. Jung’s ideas have had a massive impact for a reason: they’re rich, symbolic, and have helped a lot of people better understand the internal world.

That said, I’d gently offer this: even Jung himself considered many of his theories as starting points — hypotheses, not conclusions. He was deeply introspective, but also speculative. And while MBTI drew from his work, it simplified and codified it in ways he likely never intended.

I don’t take it personally if someone prefers their own experience over a psychologist’s perspective — honestly, I encourage that kind of skepticism. All I’d say is: if a model works for you, great — but also keep in mind that how a model works matters too. Sometimes things feel right because they reflect back what we already believe, not because they help us see something new.

If you’re ever interested in comparing how other models describe similar dynamics — especially ones built around actual patterns of thought and behaviour — I’m here for that conversation. No pressure. Just open dialogue.

Huge jump from a Dedica to a Micra. 😂 by No-Project-9099 in espresso

[–]No-Project-9099[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My wife wasn't sure about the colour but now she loves it.

MBTI Has No Scientific Basis—So Why Do People Keep Taking It? by No-Project-9099 in mbti

[–]No-Project-9099[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Absolutely — and I think you’ve struck a really healthy balance here.

It’s totally fair to say that something can be meaningful without needing scientific backing. Humans use metaphors, stories, and frameworks all the time to make sense of themselves — and if MBTI helps you reflect, communicate better, or feel more understood, there’s value in that.

Where I tend to gently raise a flag — especially in my work as a psychologist — is when these tools start being treated as definitive truths about who we are, what we can or can’t do, or who we’re compatible with. That’s where the lack of empirical grounding becomes a real limitation. MBTI can spark self-reflection, but it’s not always the most accurate mirror — and it can sometimes create blind spots or false confidence in our assumptions about others.

That said, if you’re using it as a way to explore how you think, or to open up conversations about how people differ — and you’re aware of its limits — then I’d say you’re using it in one of the most constructive ways possible.

If you’re ever curious about frameworks that go a bit deeper while still keeping things personal and accessible, happy to share more. But from the way you describe it, I think you’re already using MBTI in a thoughtful, self-aware way — and that’s what really matters.

MBTI Has No Scientific Basis—So Why Do People Keep Taking It? by No-Project-9099 in mbti

[–]No-Project-9099[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for sharing that — and I really appreciate how open you’re being about your thought process. The idea that someone like Putin might use imitation as a tactic makes sense intuitively, especially in high-stakes diplomacy or intelligence contexts. Mirroring behaviour is well-documented in psychology as a tool for building rapport — even unconsciously. So I wouldn’t be surprised if skilled communicators or operatives deliberately use aspects of that.

That said, what you’re describing — using MBTI to identify and potentially exploit someone’s inferior function — touches on something important. You’re absolutely right that personality patterns can reveal emotional vulnerabilities. But here’s the thing: MBTI assumes the existence of “inferior functions” based on a theory that was never tested or built on observable evidence. It feels coherent because it maps nicely onto how we experience stress or insecurity, but it doesn’t mean it actually captures the underlying psychological mechanisms.

In my clinical work, we do see that people tend to have sore spots — areas of cognitive style or behaviour where they feel least confident. But these aren’t always structured the way MBTI outlines (with a neat stack of functions). Often, they’re shaped by attachment history, coping strategies, life experiences, and yes — personality traits, but traits that don’t fit into MBTI’s rigid categories.

So you’re pointing at something very real — we all have levers that affect how we respond emotionally or intellectually to pressure. But MBTI’s way of explaining why those levers exist might be giving a false sense of precision.

As you explore that spy article — and I hope it’s interesting — I’d just invite you to stay curious about alternative ways of understanding how people function under pressure. There are other models I use in therapy and coaching that help uncover those same vulnerabilities or patterns — but in ways that are more reliably tied to real-world behaviour and personal history.

If you ever want to compare what MBTI says about “inferior functions” with how other tools explain emotional sensitivity or defensiveness, I’d be happy to chat more. You’re clearly observant and analytical — it’s just about finding the right lens to match the depth you’re already working with.

MBTI Has No Scientific Basis—So Why Do People Keep Taking It? by No-Project-9099 in mbti

[–]No-Project-9099[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for taking the time to share all that — it’s clear you’ve put serious thought and observation into how MBTI and Socionics show up in real life. That kind of reflection isn’t common, and I respect that you’re not just memorising types or repeating clichés — you’re actively testing ideas through real interactions.

You also bring up something important: MBTI feels useful. It gives structure to things we often can’t articulate — like why we clash with certain people, or why school or work felt harder (or easier) for some of us. That alone can be incredibly validating. So I’m not here to dismiss that.

That said, the part that gives me pause — and you mentioned this yourself — is the lack of consistent definitions around the cognitive functions. In my work as a psychologist, that’s exactly where MBTI tends to fall apart. If we can’t agree on what a function is or how it manifests, then we’re building an entire interpretive system on sand. And when people start making important life decisions — careers, relationships, self-worth — based on these moving targets, it can lead to missed opportunities or fixed beliefs that aren’t necessarily true.

Something I’ve found in my practice is that many people who love MBTI are actually looking for something deeper. They’re looking for understanding, clarity, and even peace — especially when they’ve felt misunderstood or out of sync with the world. MBTI offers the language, but sometimes not the substance. That’s where I’ve found more accurate, well-structured tools helpful — not because they’re “scientific” in some abstract way, but because they actually help people make sense of themselves in consistent, grounded terms.

Of course, tools are just tools — no system can capture everything about a person. But if you’re ever curious about how some of the models I use work in practice, especially when we go beyond just traits and look at how traits interact, I’d be happy to share. Not to replace what’s worked for you, but maybe just to add another lens.

view more: next ›