• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

How daft? (The differences between communication and reality)

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
Okay this topic is far too large to write in any real structure that I'm capable of so hang on to your hats and try to follow.

Marginalization
Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, Ghosties, Limies, Spics whatever, why are these labels kept past their usage?

I have a friend who's Asian. His name is Joe. That's not his real name but just the one he adopted when he came to England. I call him Joe and treat him as Joe. Why do so many treat him as Asian? Okay as a first contact it possibly should bear in people's minds but after that surely he's just Joe?


Control.
Why do people look for control and look to segment people into pigeon holes so they can be categorised and organised with labels instead of responding to instances? Labels are a tool used in communication and are often irrelevant to the reality which presents itself. So why keep labels once the reality is apparent?

Cats versus Dogs.
Dogs do not hate cats and cats do not hate dogs. Hell I'd wager that they don't even recognise that the other is of different species, so why do we segment people and try to label them with predefined attributes which determine our love or hatred of them?

Basically what's the psychological reasoning behind our segmentation? Is it to control, to cope or merely a left over of our communication style?

Why do we compartmentalise people when it is so obvious that such efforts are futile and inaccurate?

If our system of labels worked in terms of reality then every person of a given "minority" would have certain similar responses to given stimuli but they don't. Sure you get tendencies and probabilities but at what point do people decide it is logical or reasonable to "convert" such things to definites?

Are we so fragile of mind that we require such crutches or is it simply laziness which promotes such unreasoned behaviour?

Oh and just cause I mentioned minorities, this is a side effect or perhaps a reverse assembly of compartmentalisation where people decide that they are "the people of X" and should be treated differently and yet demand equality. If equality is inclusion then is it right to say that 'wants' are more important and trump 'do not wants'?

If all are to live as one then all must be treated equally and have the same claims to things else the system does not work (well not to my degree of critique that is). However this means that arbitrary lines such as what you believe in or what church you go to or where you/ your parents/ your ancestors were born must become as important to what you require as your hobbies and interests.

I do not demand any extra facilitation for my hobbies so why should someone else's choice of what they do as an individual be treated as more deserving of special treatment than my own?

[Hmm this is starting to taste of peace loving anarchy is it not?]
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
You've pointed out a very real danger that can arise from misapplication of a system of categorizations. However, I don't agree that it is necessarily a negative thing, because generalizations can be useful. It is when tendencies become concrete and definite in people's minds that the problem arises.

But the truth is, I am a J, and I need labels and such crutches to deal with reality. Maybe a P can just adapt, but I have to fit all stimuli into as many categories as I can in order to understand it, otherwise I can't make sense of it.

But I am willing to create new categories for individuals that deviate from my mental standard, to explain and describe their deviation to myself, and understand them better. In fact, part of the way I remember people individually is in the specific ways in which they deviate from a particular standard. For me, my categories are how I explain my understanding, and what I create to deal with things, but they don't limit my understanding in the end.

The trick is to note every difference, and be willing to change your judgment after your initial impression.
 

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
You've pointed out a very real danger that can arise from misapplication of a system of categorizations. However, I don't agree that it is necessarily a negative thing, because generalizations can be useful. It is when tendencies become concrete and definite in people's minds that the problem arises.

But the truth is, I am a J, and I need labels and such crutches to deal with reality. Maybe a P can just adapt, but I have to fit all stimuli into as many categories as I can in order to understand it, otherwise I can't make sense of it.
To be fair J or P doesn't make much difference in terms of how people are treated though. It's not the source of the prejudice. My family is all J (the close one's though my Gran being an ENFP was a shock!), my father in particular is one of those much maligned ENTJs and yet he is better than I at treating people as individuals and not by proximity to pigeon holes. He does this via organised segmentation but that's segmentation of the process of understanding and not necessarily segmentation of the subject of the process, if that makes sense.
But I am willing to create new categories for individuals that deviate from my mental standard, to explain and describe their deviation to myself, and understand them better. In fact, part of the way I remember people individually is in the specific ways in which they deviate from a particular standard. For me, my categories are how I explain my understanding, and what I create to deal with things, but they don't limit my understanding in the end.
Okay as a P that sounds very confusing. How do you recall the vast numbers of categories? Do you not get swamped under the work load of all that filing? Is it not easier to just say "That's Bob he's quite X. That's Cheryl, she's quite Y." ?
The trick is to note every difference, and be willing to change your judgment after your initial impression.
Exactly. Always in context. One of my favourite mottos :)
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
Okay as a P that sounds very confusing. How do you recall the vast numbers of categories? Do you not get swamped under the work load of all that filing? Is it not easier to just say "That's Bob he's quite X. That's Cheryl, she's quite Y." ?

To be honest, I only pay that much attention to my closer friends, of which I only have five or six. With most people, I just respond with the standard persona of socially appropriate mannerisms. I make a slightly larger effort to accommodate my superiors, but not much.
 

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
To be honest, I only pay that much attention to my closer friends, of which I only have five or six. With most people, I just respond with the standard persona of socially appropriate mannerisms. I make a slightly larger effort to accommodate my superiors, but not much.
This was one thing that made me think "damn Fs are heartless!!". I cannot classify people in such a manner. My friends blur into my associates and my best friends are only called such because people kept pursuing me about who my best friends are. It's not that they are anything less than exemplary at ticking all the boxes to earn that title, it's just I never think in those terms. I'm a dog, one pat on the head and you're in my pack :)

Anyhow... the topic :doh:

Do you recall how you move from presumption (I'm not accusing here mind you it's just the word I thought fitted best) to the "reality" in regard to people?

Is it a case of arriving with the labels and trying to get a close fit, then noting the differences between the best fit and the subject?
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
Do you recall how you move from presumption (I'm not accusing here mind you it's just the word I thought fitted best) to the "reality" in regard to people?

Is it a case of arriving with the labels and trying to get a close fit, then noting the differences between the best fit and the subject?

Actually, I start with the impact the person makes on my inner reality, and then try to apply labels to that. I look more decisive and final on the outside than I really am.

The thing is, I'm much better at displaying emotion than knowing what I feel. I'm very likely to act out how I think I should feel based on certain rules even when I don't know what I actually feel. I have to use some kind of self-analysis and hunches to know what I actually feel, but once I do, I find it easy to express.
 

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
I wonder if Js tend to worry that they are less certain than they appear and Ps worry that they appear more certain than they are?

I wonder this cause I often am concerned that I appear to have set lines of thinking and am difficult to shift yet in truth I'm in constant re-evaluation.

Would make sense then why Js and Ps can wind each other up. The other reminds them of their own weaknesses but in opposite so it's like "what are you whining about, try living with this!!".

Still I wonder though how people can continue to make the glaring mistake of thinking that they have the measure of things well enough to not need to re-evaluate them.
 

nightning

ish red no longer *sad*
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,741
MBTI Type
INfj
I wonder if Js tend to worry that they are less certain than they appear and Ps worry that they appear more certain than they are?

I wonder this cause I often am concerned that I appear to have set lines of thinking and am difficult to shift yet in truth I'm in constant re-evaluation.

Would make sense then why Js and Ps can wind each other up. The other reminds them of their own weaknesses but in opposite so it's like "what are you whining about, try living with this!!".

Still I wonder though how people can continue to make the glaring mistake of thinking that they have the measure of things well enough to not need to re-evaluate them.

First one... I think that can be true. At least on the J end of things. Although in my case I'm worry because I'm less certain about something than I would like myself to be, rather than being overly worry that I appear more decided on an issue than I intended. Don't forget that labels are mental shortcuts we use to understand things. It's human nature to be lazy... I think that's why some people apply stereotypes and make judgments based on only on that... due to pure laziness. Of course they usually don't realize that's what they're doing... but that's besides the point.

Coming up with labels... do people have different ways of doing that? I've always wonder about it... because to me, labels are more like tags. And I typically tag a person with more than one. But judging from how you've been describing labels... it's a single label per person thing. Kind of like sticking people in bins. I've never understand very well why SJs like to do that when it's just as easy to multi-tag... it also makes your internal concept more like reality. =/
 

Maverick

New member
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
880
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Basically what's the psychological reasoning behind our segmentation? Is it to control, to cope or merely a left over of our communication style?

Why do we compartmentalise people when it is so obvious that such efforts are futile and inaccurate?

Are we so fragile of mind that we require such crutches or is it simply laziness which promotes such unreasoned behaviour?

It has little to do with personality and much with the way human beings function in general.

We need to make sense of the world and this involves creating categories to organize the information we receive. Without this mechanism we would be overwhelmed by the amount of information. People will only make the effort to go to the individual level if they have the time, skills and motivation to do so.

In a sense, the MBTI is the ultimate social categorization tool, ready to boost people's positive feelings towards people like them and see people from another type as all the same. In theory, knowledge of the MBTI should make it more difficult for people to treat others as individuals, no matter what they say or pretend about it. If this is bad or good is debatable. I guess it depends on how nice your type description sounds.
 

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
The real problem is not within people using labels to segment information into recognisable chunks and nor is it in their usage of such labels to communicate such data but rather the problem exists when the label becomes mistaken for the item it is applied to.

I am an INTP not the INTP for example. Within me is things which defies the INTP label. Sure use the label to describe me but I am not that label I am merely well described , in most situations, by the information which that label stands for.

That make more sense?
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
The real problem is not within people using labels to segment information into recognisable chunks and nor is it in their usage of such labels to communicate such data but rather the problem exists when the label becomes mistaken for the item it is applied to.

I am an INTP not the INTP for example. Within me is things which defies the INTP label. Sure use the label to describe me but I am not that label I am merely well described , in most situations, by the information which that label stands for.

That make more sense?

Humans are limited. We can only define things by an absence or presence of a quality. Even our quantitative measurements are based upon qualitative scales. For example, we say that a certain amount of observed space should be defined as an inch.

Then in addition to that, we attach "meaning" and "purpose" to our defined qualities. These are abstract qualities that cannot be observed directly unless measured by some quantitative scale (which is ironically defined by qualitative observations). For example, superiority. To measure superior intelligence, you have to take an IQ test. To measure superior building ability, you may ask how many years experience an individual has building. We can only really observe superiority as compared to inferiority which is of course defined as the absence of superior quality. As you can see, all these abstract qualties give rise to dichotomies where the absence of one defines the other. Black and white, cold and hot, wet and dry.

The final step is that we associate "meanings" and "purpose" between abstract concepts in a sort of web fashion. Think of all the terms that mean the same as black. Dark, hopeless, dirty, angry, evil.

black - Synonyms from Thesaurus.com

This last step is where we get in trouble because we are associating abstract qualities with things that can't be observed or even measured.

So you asked why we "compartmentalize", "categorize", and web things together. That is because that is how the human psyche is developed from birth and probably even beforehand. It's how we learn to interpret experience.

There are alternative ways of course. The Taoist developed a paradoxical and unifying view of the universe that I find fascinating. For example, understand that black and white are defined as different and opposites, but also realize that they are the same thing, light.

I don't know if that helps any.
 
Last edited:

developer

New member
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
117
MBTI Type
INTJ
I think that putting labels on stuff and people has biological origins. We are so proud of the brain activity created by our neocortex that we tend to forget the lower levels of brain function which in reality run a great part of our daily lives. In an evolutionary framework, speed and simplicity is most important. Our brains, like those of our biological ancestors in the African Savannah are hardwired to identify and categorize things as quickly and simply as possible. There is a sound, our ancestor turns around and sees something coming out of the Savannah grass: is it friend or foe, food or dangerous predator ? He needs to act NOW, or he will become part of the food chain real quick.

While we perceive ourselves as brilliant, highly developed individuals, deep below the surface this program continues to run, day in and day out: prey or predator, your tribe or mine, stranger or clansman, US or Europe, GM or Toyota, J or P, etc.

It served us well to get where we are, and it continues to help even today, but our world is too complicated to let it run our destiny. Your hydrogen bomb or mine ?
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,988
The problem comes from the "correctness" (i.e. how accurate the statements made about the categories comes to describing all of something in a category) of the categories as well.

The problem with psychological type is that they are not categories, but simply labels. They form fuzzy sets.

Fuzzy sets cause problems when they are treated like real sets.

Note the difference:
"I'll meet you at 9:30 for dinner." I show up at 9:25 to make sure I am there by 9:30.

"I'll meet you 9:30-ish for dinner." I show up at 10:00 and am resented for being "late".

The little "ish" screws up everything.

Stop-ish at a stop sign. Green means go-ish. Red means stop-ish. In some countries, this how traffic laws are obeyed-ish.

I am not an INTP.

I am INTP-ish, also a bit ISTP-ish, INFP-ish, INFJ-ish, and INTJ-ish.
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
The problem comes from the "correctness" (i.e. how accurate the statements made about the categories comes to describing all of something in a category) of the categories as well.

The problem with psychological type is that they are not categories, but simply labels. They form fuzzy sets.

Fuzzy sets cause problems when they are treated like real sets.

Note the difference:
"I'll meet you at 9:30 for dinner." I show up at 9:25 to make sure I am there by 9:30.

"I'll meet you 9:30-ish for dinner." I show up at 10:00 and am resented for being "late".

The little "ish" screws up everything.

Stop-ish at a stop sign. Green means go-ish. Red means stop-ish. In some countries, this how traffic laws are obeyed-ish.

Fuzzy sets vs. Real sets? I never knew what that difference of interpretation was called before... but I've certainly observed it. I've always found it's best to be as precise as possible, even if the person seemed to be allowing for open-endedness, because they may well not really know what their statement actually meant. Surely you know that people who use double negatives don't actually mean what they're saying, but in fact the opposite? Language is so misunderstood it's a wonder we can communicate at all.
I am not an INTP.

No, he's Not. (Just kidding, I know what you meant.)
I am INTP-ish, also a bit ISTP-ish, INFP-ish, INFJ-ish, and INTJ-ish.

You're quite a mixed personality, then. Do you think most other people are as mixed as you? In my case, I'm sure there's an obvious INFJ component, but what else? Is there any way to determine what other types you might resemble based on particular criteria? I suppose you probably just determined that by introspection, but I don't feel I understand the behaviors and underlying psychology of other types, or even my own, well enough to guess in that manner.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,988
Fuzzy sets vs. Real sets? I never knew what that difference of interpretation was called before... but I've certainly observed it.

Actually, the distinction is between Sets and Fuzzy Sets. I tacked on the word "Real" for emphasis.

You're quite a mixed personality, then. Do you think most other people are as mixed as you? In my case, I'm sure there's an obvious INFJ component, but what else? Is there any way to determine what other types you might resemble based on particular criteria? I suppose you probably just determined that by introspection, but I don't feel I understand the behaviors and underlying psychology of other types, or even my own, well enough to guess in that manner.

You can see if you can tell how "mixed" I am from my MBTI history.

I was tested once Freshman year of HS (in English class) and came out INTP, didn't pay much attention really, but it was another little theoretical system to play with so kept track of people's types if they revealed it. Senior year, again in English class, I took it and came out ISTP. At this point, I still didn't care, but became rather skeptical, since I figured people's types would change alot (though many people came out exactly the same).

I took a much lighter version of the test in a Software Engineering class sophmore year in College (part of the profs. research) and came out INFP. I also kept track of some of the results of friends in the class out of habbit. At this point, I figured it was all BS, but didn't care enough to investigate.

Once in a while, I would get sent one of those "fun" web versions of the test from a friend, and I have tested INTP, ISTP, INFP, INFJ (even on MLC's test, I think) and INTJ. If my freinds told me what type they were, I kept track (again out of habbit). One of these times my sister tested ENFP (and I still think that is a pretty good fit).

When I started work, some of my coworkers showed some interest in the Keirsy's Please Understand Me. I found out my co-workers types this way, one decided I was INFP (maybe INTJ, but definitely not INTP). I got a little interested, so I ordered the temperament and interaction style booklets from the Undertanding Yourself and Others Series. I quickly went through, and my brother did to (he came out SP, Behind-The-Scenes, and I came out NT, Behind-The-Scences). That was about it for a while.

Much later on (as in, a few months back), during my counceling sessions, I mentioned that at one point, I was interested in understanding people and that I had once bought some books related to that. My councelor suggested I look back through these books to see if things made sense. That is when I got very interested (I had also collected some of Freud's, Rogers' and others books by that time) and started reading voraciously. I also went through a good number of the Understanding Yourself and Others booklets, and joined MBTI Nebulous. One of the INTP people on that board mentioned INTP central and MBTI central, so I joined both. I spend most of my time on this forum.

Going through all those booklets has given me a fair amout of confidence that a professional would type me as INTP. I also went through and analysed the friends and acquatances I "knew" the types of while reading the booklets. It is amazing, how well what is described in the booklets fit (but I could be "making them fit").

Maybe I am more "mixed" than most others, but there seem to be a lot of "mixed" types on this forum.
 

wildcat

New member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,622
MBTI Type
INTP
You've pointed out a very real danger that can arise from misapplication of a system of categorizations. However, I don't agree that it is necessarily a negative thing, because generalizations can be useful. It is when tendencies become concrete and definite in people's minds that the problem arises.

But the truth is, I am a J, and I need labels and such crutches to deal with reality. Maybe a P can just adapt, but I have to fit all stimuli into as many categories as I can in order to understand it, otherwise I can't make sense of it.

But I am willing to create new categories for individuals that deviate from my mental standard, to explain and describe their deviation to myself, and understand them better. In fact, part of the way I remember people individually is in the specific ways in which they deviate from a particular standard. For me, my categories are how I explain my understanding, and what I create to deal with things, but they don't limit my understanding in the end.

The trick is to note every difference, and be willing to change your judgment after your initial impression.
You are not a J.

You are not athenian200 or whatever.

You are a mammal.
 

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
You are not a J.

You are not athenian200 or whatever.

You are a mammal.

Are you sure? I thought someone said Athenian was a bird? :devil:


Fuzzy sets versus sets is exactly the problem.

Oh and do we know anyone who is a classic 'whatever' type person? I very much doubt it. The types as described seem to be like truth. It can be written down but it can't be found as written anywhere in life unless you slacken the parameters away from precision and hence end up with a fuzzy set.

I guess the real question about all of this is very INTP. Why do people try to build such complex systems and realise things when they haven't understood the underlying currents in the information?
 
Top