Jump to content

Fluffeh

Community Team
  • Posts

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Fluffeh last won the day on October 24 2021

Fluffeh had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

1,089 profile views

Fluffeh's Achievements

  1. Oh no, we've been found. @Elcent kindly send someone to get rid of @Scarlet Lorv as soon as you can.
  2. Hey Pilots, Today, we're excited to announce we'll be doing another special gold portal event! And, to celebrate, we've made fortune boxes (if you’re lucky enough to get one) a lot more rewarding. In fact, they're the most rewarding (and rarest) fortune boxes we've ever made! Most rewarding of all are the first-finish boxes, so try to finish all of the difficulties at least once. A word, though: harder difficulties have much higher drops but are also much harder than anything we've done before(!) Also, relics drop only in first-finish boxes, so we wouldn’t suggest trying to farm them. We hope you'll have lots of fun playing through this and, if folks are up for it, we’d like to do more relic events (albeit with slightly lower droprates) in the future! Best of luck, The Supermechs Team
  3. I won't kill you (yet), but I certainly have a lot to say about the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator. I'd describe it as protoscientific. I'd be remiss if I dismissed its historical value entirely, but it's based on a Jungan theory from 1921, when psychology as a science was very much still in its infancy. The Big Five model has been the academic standard for over 30 years now with much more and much stronger empirical evidence than Jungian theory has ever had, so I'd really take the modern MBTI with a big grain of salt. It's important to note that the modern MBTI is foremost a business product and not an academic instrument. The Myers–Briggs Company specifically disclaims clinical usage and comparisons with other personality inventories on the basis that it assesses normal personalities and not personality disorders. In my opinion though, that misrepresents the field of personality research as being equivalent to just psychopathology. For example, the NEO Personality Inventory-3, the current standard inventory for Big5, was specifically designed to assess normal personalities. Moreover, much of the research about the MBTI is published by a journal that specifically says its purpose is to promote Jungan theory rather than to advance the field overall. That being said, Big5 isn't the only model of personality with academic acceptance anymore. A six-factor model called the HEXACO model has been gaining traction in the last 10 years. For anyone interested, the academics behind HEXACO published a book called The H Factor of Personality: Why Some People are Manipulative, Self-Entitled, Materialistic, and Exploitive—And Why It Matters for Everyone. It's a good layman's introduction to HEXACO but also to the overall history and theory behind modern personality research. I'd say the most important thing to keep in mind, especially with all of the weaknesses with the MBTI, is to not let yourself be boxed in by the label you've been given. Personality inventories are descriptive, not prescriptive, and 16Personalities in particular specifically disclaims all usage except for entertainment and information, so in my eyes it's about as valid as the horoscope section of a newspaper. For something more useful, I'd recommend either the International Personality Item Pool Representation of the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised or the HEXACO Personality Inventory-Revised. In any case, though:
×
×
  • Create New...