manipulation and MBTI knowledge

[Sentura]

what is it exactly that you do, victor?

 

[Mole]

Carl is not the Messiah, he is just a naughty boy.

I never thought people would be so motivated to slander theories and support others based on their perceived relationship to Nazis... Seriously man, common. Reich?

My main criticism of Carl Jung is psychological rather than political.

And although I do criticise Carl Jung for freely and enthusiastically collaborating with the National Socialists, I think his unresolved relationship with his father is more important psychologically.

Jung tries all his life to resolve his relationship with his father. First he sought Sigmund Freud as a surrogate father. But Jung failed his Analysis with Freud and in reaction rejected Freud.

And having rejected Sigmund Freud as a surrogate father, Carl Jung turned to the Führer as his next surrogate father.

And Carl Jung never rejected the Führer as his surrogate father, even after the war.

And so Carl Jung was never able to resolve his relationship with his own father.

In fact he remained in psychological competition with his father his whole life.

Carl Jung's father was a Minister of Religion. So Carl Jung rather than coming to accept his father, decided to beat his father at his own game.

And Carl decided to form his own religion. And he did - a kind of secular religion.

However Carl was psychologically compromised from the very beginning.

So Carl Jung is less than a good psychological guide.

 

[ptgatsby]

...

So this tells me you don't like JTI, how about you tell the story about how you objectively dislike MBTI - I suggest talking a lot about Myer's heritage as well. Oh, and definitely include references how they continued Jung's "fascist" work, and that the real answers lie in that we are all sexually frustrated. I look forward to the analysis of factor analysis, reliability studies and validation tests that you are familiar with, since I assume you'll address those in your criticism of MBTI, and in support of Reich's Freudian theories.

 

[Thalassa]

My main criticism of Carl Jung is psychological rather than political.

And although I do criticise Carl Jung for freely and enthusiastically collaborating with the National Socialists, I think his unresolved relationship with his father is more important psychologically.

Jung tries all his life to resolve his relationship with his father. First he sought Sigmund Freud as a surrogate father. But Jung failed his Analysis with Freud and in reaction rejected Freud.

And having rejected Sigmund Freud as a surrogate father, Carl Jung turned to the Führer as his next surrogate father.

And Carl Jung never rejected the Führer as his surrogate father, even after the war.

And so Carl Jung was never able to resolve his relationship with his own father.

In fact he remained in psychological competition with his father his whole life.

Carl Jung's father was a Minister of Religion. So Carl Jung rather than coming to accept his father, decided to beat his father at his own game.

And Carl decided to form his own religion. And he did - a kind of secular religion.

However Carl was psychologically compromised from the very beginning.

So Carl Jung is less than a good psychological guide.

I am going to have to disagree that a person's own "issues" makes their intellectual theories invalid. We could disect many current psychiatrists and psychologists, I'm certain, and find trouble in their psyches. There's a joke that goes every shrink needs a shrink. Same with philosophers - Nietzche for one was a kook who had monumental trouble with his relationships with women, but does that make him less of a great philosopher? I personally don't hold Nietzche up as one of my personal favorites, but I don't think it's a good idea to dismiss a person's ideas just because of their dysfunctional childhood or personal neuroses.

 

[Mole]

I am going to have to disagree that a person's own "issues" makes their intellectual theories invalid. We could disect many current psychiatrists and psychologists, I'm certain, and find trouble in their psyches. There's a joke that goes every shrink needs a shrink. Same with philosophers - Nietzche for one was a kook who had monumental trouble with his relationships with women, but does that make him less of a great philosopher? I personally don't hold Nietzche up as one of my personal favorites, but I don't think it's a good idea to dismiss a person's ideas just because of their dysfunctional childhood or personal neuroses.

This is true of Physics as it is the study of the objective world.

However Carl Jung's Psychology is a a study of the subjective world.

And so I think it is important to study Carl Jung's own subjective world.

 

[Thalassa]

This is true of Physics as it is the study of the objective world.

However Carl Jung's Psychology is a a study of the subjective world.

And so I think it is important to study Carl Jung's own subjective world.

You're entitled to this opinion of course. I just don't necessarily agree with it. I would have probably disliked F.Scott Fitzgerald as a person, but I love his writing. I don't have to adore the personalities or behaviors of my favorite writers or artists to admire their work, and I use this as an example because art and literature are also subjective fields.

 

[Jaguar]

So this tells me you don't like JTI, how about you tell the story about how you objectively dislike MBTI - I suggest talking a lot about Myer's heritage as well. Oh, and definitely include references how they continued Jung's "fascist" work, and that the real answers lie in that we are all sexually frustrated.

Oh sheeeeeeeit hahaha.
I was beginning to think no one had a sense of humor around here.

 

[Thalassa]

I was beginning to think no one had a sense of humor around here.

That's strange because I've been laughing at some of the things all of you have said since around page 2.

 

[Mole]

You're entitled to this opinion of course. I just don't necessarily agree with it. I would have probably disliked F.Scott Fitzgerald as a person, but I love his writing. I don't have to adore the personalities or behaviors of my favorite writers or artists to admire their work, and I use this as an example because art and literature are also subjective fields.

First I am told MBTI is a valid and reliable personality test. Now I am being told it is an example of art and literature, that it is an invention of the imagination.

I think you have been scammed by Mrs Briggs and her daughter Mrs Myers.

I think you have been caught up in the popular cult of MBTI and now can't get out.

A popular cult acts a bit like a drug -

When you can get out, you don't want to.
And when you want to get out, you can't.

 

[Thalassa]

First I am told MBTI is a valid and reliable personality test. Now I am being told it is an example of art and literature, that it is an invention of the imagination.

I never said that! I was arguing the point that judging a person's work or ideas by their personal experiences and/or inner emotional life is not really a valid way to judge the quality of their ideas.

I have an acquaintence who has a PhD in philosophy who shares this opinion, so somehow I feel more justified in arguing this point than I would some of my other personal opinions.

I used art and literature as examples because they are subjective, just as are most things in life, including psychoanalysis. Literary studies include analysis, you know.

I think you have been scammed by Mrs Briggs and her daughter Mrs Myers.

I think you have been caught up in the popular cult of MBTI and now can't get out.

A popular cult acts a bit like a drug -

When you can get out, you don't want to.
And when you want to get out, you can't.

This here is the stuff of tin foil hats. You strike me as a thoughtful, intelligent person, but these are extreme statements to make about people you've never met.

Perhaps I should just let simulatedworld address this particular accusation of yours, since he's been so adept at it in earlier posts.

 

[Jaguar]

First I am told MBTI is a valid and reliable personality test. Now I am being told it is an example of art and literature, that it is an invention of the imagination.

Victor--
Marmalade didn't say anything of the sort.
Cut the crap and quit making up shit.

 

[ptgatsby]

Victor--
Marmalade didn't say anything of the sort.
Cut the crap and quit making up shit.

I said it, fwiw.

 

[Thalassa]

Victor--
Marmalade didn't say anything of the sort.
Cut the crap and quit making up shit.

Thank you.

 

[simulatedworld]

No. I shouldn't have to elaborate on what a person with DEPTH means.
Right about now, I am certain I am not ENTP.

Then can you elaborate on why you don't think I have any? That's kind of a bold statement based on very little information, wouldn't you say?

There is no MBTI theory without function order.
Don't you get that?
You can't do it your way and still call it MBTI.

Sure I can. The first book I read on the topic basically ignored function order and described MBTI as a system of four independent variables, and I'm going to continue using it that way.

Never assume anything.

On this board, in another area, was this verbal exchange about Barack Obama:

"There seems to be a consensus of sorts on Barack's type,
with most believing him to be ENFJ."

"You really think his fourth function is Ti?
I can't buy into that.
His thinking function would most likely be first or second, not fourth.
He's far too strategic and logical to be Fe dom."

Now, clearly this person thinks an ENFJ has a predetermined function order,
as if all ENFJ's are burped out of their mother's womb that way.

I don't think people have healthy skepticism about this predetermined function order at all.
Quite the contrary!

Yup, that's silly. You're right that a lot of people cling too much to function order dogma, but not everyone does.

And the name change from MBTI Central to Typology Central was good luck.

It was good luck because Typology Central now includes MBTI as well as Wilhelm Reich's book, "Character Analysis".

And, "Character Analysis", is intellectually and morally superior to MBTI.

As, "Character Analysis", is still on the curriculum of University Psychology Departments.

While MBTI has been consigned to the rubbish bin along with astrology and alchemy and creationism.

Actually, a different form of MBTI which ignores Jungian functions entirely and uses the system as one of four independent variables is still on the curriculum of numerous University Psychology Departments.

I studied MBTI in a business management class at Georgia State, and many of my friends and colleagues have been introduced to it in psychology and business courses at other universities in the area as well.

But I'll agree that it's nice to see the name change.

 

[Jaguar]

Then can you elaborate on why you don't think I have any? That's kind of a bold statement based on very little information, wouldn't you say?

It may appear to be little information to you, but not to me.
I read between the lines all the time.
Why do you even give a shit that I think you have no depth?

But to make this mental masturbation constructive,
I would contend that function order is key in our situation.
What one person requires to "know" something of another,
may literally be undeveloped in the other person.

Now, let's take this further:
You want to create a simple little theory (dare I say you fear anything complex,)
that implies ENTPs, or XXXX, would be alike in some way.
The problem here is, there is Ne and Ni.
(If we bring Jungian theory into the picture.)
You seemingly want to deny the existence of such variablity,
and have some half-assed conclusion,
just for the sake of having any conclusion.

You seem to have a need for expediency over accuracy and truth.
It matters not to you whether the fruits of your labor are rotten.
You just expect people to eat the fruit.

BTW, it's not just the function *order* I take issue with in MBTI,
it's the method of data collection: forced-choice questions.

Say you came into my office and said:
Hey Jag, that person you want to hire is an ENTP.
I'd say, based on what?
You show me a test with questions that look like this:

I love:
A) Mom
B) Dad

So I am to conclude that the person in question,
forced to choose against their will,
prefers Mom or Dad?

That's what forced-choice questions do.
Force inaccurate conclusions.

 

[simulatedworld]

^ Just curious, really.

I really don't put much stock in Jungian function theory at all, but he said himself that Ne and Ni are effectively the same thing; the only difference is the direction of the libido.

You seem to have a need for expediency over accuracy and truth.

No, I just don't expect more than a surface-level analysis from a system which expects to place 6 billion people into 16 boxes. Where does this assumption that I don't actually analyze specific people in any more depth than this come from? Once again, it's an arbitrary categorization for easier indexing. It doesn't actually create anything that isn't already there; for me it's all just a method of categorization of things that are already there. Are you really missing this point or just being deliberately difficult?

I don't declare someone to be INFP and then completely stop analyzing him, or assume that he is precisely the same in every way as all other people that I've categorized as INFP. The INFP is just an arbitrary label that means he shares a certain number of very broad characteristics with other people that I label INFP, and it's only for my own indexing uses when making decisions as to how to interact with this person.

"INFP" is just the name written on the mental file folder full of specific, personal information I've gathered on that person from personal interaction with him. In the absence of more specific data, its use is very limited--the longer I interact with a person, the more meaningful this label becomes. Much like playing poker, I don't label someone "loose aggressive" and expect those two words to serve as a complete roadmap for understanding his tendencies; that's simply a summary of the total specific pieces of information I've gathered on him personally.

The fact that you can't see the connections between a 51% N ENTJ and a 100% N ENTJ isn't really my problem; they still have enough in common to place them under the same arbitrary label. The problem isn't the generalized label; it's people who expect four letters to provide a complete explanation for a person's entire psyche (like you.)

But the point here is that "INFP" only supplements the specific personal data I've gathered on that person; it doesn't comprise the entirety of the information by any means. Again, you're expecting S-level specificity from an N concept, and it's because you don't understand the use and inherent limitations of generalized descriptions. (This, by the way, suggests to me that you may be an S type. My best guess right now would be ISTP, but that's based on very little information and could easily change as I gather more information on you.)

You've also made a gigantic blunder by assuming that this loose association between general groups of people is the entire store of information from which I derive my decisions in interpersonal interaction, hence your accusation that I have no depth. Again, not really my problem. It's only one tool in an arsenal of many, one perspective from which to gain a little bit more insight. This minor detail is not, in any capacity, the entire picture.

As for the forced questions, the only actual relevant part of your last post here:

This is a valid criticism of the MBTI testing tool; you're right about that. It uses 70 questions to attempt to arrive at an average of overall preferences--most people actually *do* prefer Mom or Dad slightly more often than the other.

For people who are very balanced on at least a couple of the sliding scales, MBTI isn't very helpful. It's most useful for very polarized people, because the stronger the behavioral preferences the more predictable that person's behavior will be. Again, anyone who understands MBTI in context, including its inherent limitations, will understand that there are situations where it doesn't apply, and will have the good sense not to overextend it or expect an unrealistic level of utility from it.

Once again, MBTI isn't my bible for social interaction; it's simply one possible perspective from which to construct one part of a larger overall picture.

 

[Thalassa]

I don't declare someone to be INFP and then completely stop analyzing him

or her

.

This is a valid criticism of the MBTI testing tool; you're right about that. It uses 70 questions to attempt to arrive at an average of overall preferences--most people actually *do* prefer Mom or Dad slightly more often than the other.

true

For people who are very balanced on at least a couple of the sliding scales, MBTI isn't very helpful. It's most useful for very polarized people, because the stronger the behavioral preferences the more predictable that person's behavior will be. Again, anyone who understands MBTI in context, including its inherent limitations, will understand that there are situations where it doesn't apply, and will have the good sense not to overextend it or expect an unrealistic level of utility from it.

There are actually versions of the test which employ the sliding scale instead of forced choice.

 

[Jaguar]

I really don't put much stock in Jungian function theory at all, but he said himself that Ne and Ni are effectively the same thing; the only difference is the direction of the libido.

Sounds to me like something crazy-assed Freud would say.
Not Jung.

Are you really missing this point or just being deliberately difficult?

I just think what you claim you are doing and what you are indeed doing, are in conflict.
But rather than continue on about it, let's just agree to disagree.

The INFP is just an arbitrary label that means he shares a certain number of very broad characteristics with other people that I label INFP, and it's only for my own indexing uses when making decisions as to how to interact with this person.

Glad you brought up INFP.
I know of several who claim to be such.
Very different people.
I'm sitting here shaking my head reading your words.

There is no way to say this other than directly:
If you are so deficient in knowing how to interact with people,
that you need some arbitrary 4-letter system to help you,
I suggest you seek some professional help,
to ascertain why you can't relate to people on your own.

The thought of you having an N in your own type is amusing.
There is nothing "intuitive" about a person who does what you do.
Intuitive people can read others without a cheat sheet.

The fact that you can't see the connections between a 51% N ENTJ and a 100% N ENTJ isn't really my problem; they still have enough in common to place them under the same arbitrary label.

No, they do not have enough in common.
As a matter of fact, MBTI was forced to address this very issue,
and changed how they categorize people.
The "new" MBTI or MBTI II, or some such nonsense.
That's old news, by the way.
I gather, all the bad press got to them,
and they tried to make themselves appear less ignorant.

Again, you're expecting S-level specificity from an N concept, and it's because you don't understand the use and inherent limitations of generalized descriptions.

I'm well aware of the inherent limitations.
I--as opposed to you--expect accuracy.
You keep calling it specificity.
Pick up a dictionary, the words have different meanings.

If you don't care there are INFPs out there with well-developed T's,
and you still think they belong in the same group as those who do not,
then let's cut this nonsense already.
Let me tighten those blinders on your eyes, and take you out on the horse track.

You've also made a gigantic blunder by assuming that this loose association between general groups of people is the entire store of information from which I derive my decisions in interpersonal interaction, hence your accusation that I have no depth.

You actually expected me to fall for that line of bait?
See, here is where you expect me to tell you why I think you have no depth.
I guess you will just have to go on wondering.

 

[simulatedworld]

Sounds to me like something crazy-assed Freud would say.
Not Jung.

I guess you'll actually have to read Jung to find out.

I just think what you claim you are doing and what you are indeed doing, are in conflict.
But rather than continue on about it, let's just agree to disagree.

k.

Glad you brought up INFP.
I know of several who claim to be such.
Very different people.
I'm sitting here shaking my head reading your words.

Very different people, sure, but very different with certain generally related patterns in their behaviors. Otherwise they wouldn't all actually be INFPs.

There is no way to say this other than directly:
If you are so deficient in knowing how to interact with people,
that you need some arbitrary 4-letter system to help you,
I suggest you seek some professional help,
to ascertain why you can't relate to people on your own.

I can relate to people just fine; it's simply interesting to consider the system from an analytic perspective as well. This multiple perspectives thing, and your continual insistence that I see only the one I'm discussing at any given moment, are part of the reason I think you probably have an S preference. Doesn't mean you don't have any intuition, just that you seem to prefer close, detail-oriented analysis of individual pieces over generalized abstraction about patterns in the whole.

And that's all it means.

The thought of you having an N in your own type is amusing.
There is nothing "intuitive" about a person who does what you do.
Intuitive people can read others without a cheat sheet.

Uh huh, I'm sure that you know all about the subtleties of MBTI typing, since you've read so much Jung and all.

It's not a cheat sheet; it's a supplement. It's another facet of the same whole. iNtuitive people, more often than not, like to look at things from as many different perspectives and with as many different interpretations as possible, in order to try and construct a mental big picture of the overarching theory of whatever concept.

And you continue making the mistake of assuming that whatever perspective I'm speaking from at the moment must be the one to which I adhere exclusively and dogmatically. Not so.

No, they do not have enough in common.
As a matter of fact, MBTI was forced to address this very issue,
and changed how they categorize people.
The "new" MBTI or MBTI II, or some such nonsense.
That's old news, by the way.
I gather, all the bad press got to them,
and they tried to make themselves appear less ignorant.

If you don't see enough common behavioral patterns between them, don't use MBTI. Doesn't mean people with better abstract pattern recognition than yours can't find something valuable for their own purposes.

I'm well aware of the inherent limitations.
I--as opposed to you--expect accuracy.
You keep calling it specificity.
Pick up a dictionary, the words have different meanings.

And there's plenty of accuracy to be found when you consider typology from a long-term, group average perspective. Since the only perspective you seem to consider to be of any value is of the immediate, concrete and factually specific nature, you will not find much use in a system which only describes general trends over time. MBTI attracts more Ns than Ss for a reason (not that this is a bad thing.)

If you don't care there are INFPs out there with well-developed T's,
and you still think they belong in the same group as those who do not,
then let's cut this nonsense already.
Let me tighten those blinders on your eyes, and take you out on the horse track.

Of course there are INFPs with well-developed Ts; that's not what MBTI measures. It measures preference in frequency of use, not strength of each individual characteristic. If you'd read an introductory book on the topic, most of your concerns would be answered. I'd recommend Type Talk, by Otto Kroeger and Janet M. Thuesen.

It cuts the function bullshit from the get-go and focuses solely on a system of four independent variables of behavioral preference, and it uses all kinds of real-life situations to illustrate examples. Is it wrong or inapplicable in some cases? Sure, lots of them. Anyone who takes the time to study it will understand when not to rely on it, of course.

You actually expected me to fall for that line of bait?
See, here is where you expect me to tell you why I think you have no depth.
I guess you will just have to go on wondering.

No, not really. I already understand why you think that, and as you mentioned earlier, I don't particularly care.

 

[sculpting]

I would contend that function order is key in our situation.
What one person requires to "know" something of another,
may literally be undeveloped in the other person.

BTW, it's not just the function *order* I take issue with in MBTI,
it's the method of data collection: forced-choice questions.

Say you came into my office and said:
Hey Jag, that person you want to hire is an ENTP.
I'd say, based on what?
You show me a test with questions that look like this:

I love:
A) Mom
B) Dad

So I am to conclude that the person in question,
forced to choose against their will,
prefers Mom or Dad?

That's what forced-choice questions do.
Force inaccurate conclusions.