It’s funny I litterally just finished an episode of Search Engine, the ‘new’ PJ Vogt podcast, where that’s the actual question. It was the May 3rd episode, and they’re interviewing a researcher on the topic, etc.
It’s funny I litterally just finished an episode of Search Engine, the ‘new’ PJ Vogt podcast, where that’s the actual question. It was the May 3rd episode, and they’re interviewing a researcher on the topic, etc.
i understand even less when people are saying that when someone does something out of passion it should allow us to consume it for free
I’m not going to replay an ontological debate that has been happening in the fields of sociology and psychology for decades with an engineer on the internet, who claims his own rationality a bit too hard. MBTI is considered pseudoscience because of its weakness against proper scientific validation processes, as well as its lack of support among both practitioners, theorists and researchers in the academic circles.
But to be clear, just because knowledge isn’t scientific doesn’t mean it doesn’t have value, there are tons of example like that that we use every day. The main issue I have with MBTI is that it takes the appearance of scientific knowledge, which I find deceitful and thus suspicious.
It’s pseudoscience in both cases, saying you’re so and so because your personality is INFJ has almost as little value as correlating to being a gemini. Now if you find some sense in those personality types, maybe that contains some lessons.
IT’S YOUR MOM