User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 51

  1. #11
    ReflecTcelfeR
    Guest

    Default

    So we seem to be talking about the first question right now. I suppose the argument might be that function theory isn't expansive enough? What does this theory lack that would allow reality to be described more fully?

    TWHS, I'm with Morgan on the difference between components and the subcomponents point. I don't see any real discernable difference.

  2. #12
    Senior Member ThatsWhatHeSaid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    7,233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wonkavision View Post
    Ok, fair enough.

    You can do personal growth without typological models. Though I would argue that having a model would be far more effective.


    Having SOME model is definitely helpful to guide you. I don't know if typology is really it though. A theory that explains 1) what ideal living is and 2) how to get there would seem much better suited. Typology doesn't do that, unless you're talking about the shadow and accepting the shadow. But most people here aren't talking about that stuff, and if they are, they don't really get what they're talking about. At least, that's my impression.

    In the case of understanding others who are very different from you, I don't think it's quite so easy.

    You might understand them instinctively or intuitively or through experience, etc. to some extent. But again, I would argue that combining your knowledge with a model of some kind would be the most effective and accurate way to go about it.
    See, I would totally disagree. Anytime you reference a model, you move from the territory to the map and you begin abstracting who the person is, rather than just "taking them in." You get to know your ideas of who the person is as opposed to the person themselves. That really the opposite of accuracy.

    You find this with typology, too. You can pidgeonhole someone (or be pidgeonholed yourself) into some type and then think you really know them. But you only get to know the part of them that's consistent with your expectations and assumptions. You're essentially relating to a role, rather than to the person. If you give up those roles, you suddenly see the person in a more complete light and you actually understand them. You have intimacy.

  3. #13
    Senior Member ThatsWhatHeSaid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    7,233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ReflecttcelfeR View Post
    So we seem to be talking about the first question right now. I suppose the argument might be that function theory isn't expansive enough? What does this theory lack that would allow reality to be described more fully?
    For one thing, typology is a type theory. Classification schemes don't tell you how things really operate. Think about neuroscience and how the brain works. Think about cognitive psychology and language. Think about the way you actually think. There's a lot more going on than cognitive functions. Memory, language, processing biases, personality disorders, the mechanics of anxiety, desire, impulses, pleasure, pain and reward, and the other 100 billion ways you can type people (need for stimulation, need for cognition, restlessness, sexual proclivities, superstition, the list is endless). Type theories are 1) not equipped or designed to account for this stuff and 2) don't explain how any of this actually operates in a person's experience. It's the wrong tool for the job.

    TWHS, I'm with Morgan on the difference between components and the subcomponents point. I don't see any real discernable difference.
    Can you explain what you mean?

  4. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,278

    Default

    You can't label someone with this stuff entirely because,

    We're always changing .. we adapt to our circumstances and environment.
    Our morality,interests, temperament, status, confidence, mental state, ideals, manners, mannerisms, critiques, desires and fears (just to name a few)
    are dependent on what is going on around us now and the likely possibilities of what is to come.
    Our preferences are based mostly on the past and require constant inventory to be up to date if our behavior is to be congruent with our values.

    Of course there is always our personal genetic template that has an influence and it has to be considered.
    But nature VS Nurture studies indicate that the gap is never more than 60-40 in either direction with most settling on a 50-50 split..

    So Half of who and what we are is transient ,unpredictable and based on our present and possible circumstances.

  5. #15
    ReflecTcelfeR
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatsWhatHeSaid View Post
    For one thing, typology is a type theory. Classification schemes don't tell you how things really operate. Think about neuroscience and how the brain works. Think about cognitive psychology and language. Think about the way you actually think. There's a lot more going on than cognitive functions. Memory, language, processing biases, personality disorders, the mechanics of anxiety, desire, impulses, pleasure, pain and reward, and the other 100 billion ways you can type people (need for stimulation, need for cognition, restlessness, sexual proclivities, superstition, the list is endless). Type theories are 1) not equipped or designed to account for this stuff and 2) don't explain how any of this actually operates in a person's experience. It's the wrong tool for the job.



    Can you explain what you mean?
    On the first part. Do you think it'd be possible to attach something on this theory to encompass a broader range of the human psyche, or would that simply just mean adding this to a larger branch that already exists? I mean is there a way to keep this a seperate entity and add more onto it?

    I was just wondering if you were trying to make a point by changing the name i.e. in stead of categories saying components that's all, not a very major part of the thread.

  6. #16
    ReflecTcelfeR
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arclight View Post
    You can't label someone with this stuff entirely because,

    We're always changing .. we adapt to our circumstances and environment.
    Our morality,interests, temperament, status, confidence, mental state, ideals, manners, mannerisms, critiques, desires and fears (just to name a few)
    are dependent on what is going on around us now and the likely possibilities of what is to come.
    Our preferences are based mostly on the past and require constant inventory to be up to date if our behavior is to be congruent with our values.

    Of course there is always our personal genetic template that has an influence and it has to be considered.
    But nature VS Nurture studies indicate that the gap is never more than 60-40 in either direction with most settling on a 50-50 split..

    So Half of who and what we are is transient ,unpredictable and based on our present and possible circumstances.
    Isn't this described through the perceiving functions? Or am I confusing them again?

    Wouldn't a change just alter the functions. I suppose I don't see how changing how we think escapes these definitions it would just seem that we'd have to change type.

  7. #17
    Senior Member ThatsWhatHeSaid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    7,233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ReflecttcelfeR View Post
    On the first part. Do you think it'd be possible to attach something on this theory to encompass a broader range of the human psyche, or would that simply just mean adding this to a larger branch that already exists? I mean is there a way to keep this a seperate entity and add more onto it?
    If we're talking about typology, then no, because it's a classification system. I think the ideal situation would be to look at neuroscience, examine your own experience, and create a model for how your mind works. I've been really interested in this question recently and have some notes in my diary journal about it.

    Buddhism is kind of obsessed with this question too, since in Buddhism, insight into the components of the self (and the illusory nature of separateness) is used to free a person from afflictive thought and emotion. If you google the term "five aggregates," you'll find the Buddhist model of mind and experience. Personality could be thought of as a part of that model.

    I was just wondering if you were trying to make a point by changing the name i.e. in stead of categories saying components that's all, not a very major part of the thread.
    Oh I see. Well, to me one is a class and one is a member in a class. An orange is an orange and it's class is fruit. If you wanted to study the composition of an orange and it's life cycle, using a classification system wouldn't be very helpful. It would tell you that the orange is a fruit and not a vegetable, but that's not very helpful. As you made your classification system more and more nuanced, eventually you would create a class just for oranges. But then you don't really have a useful classification system anymore, just little niches for everything you find. That's why I think type theories and theories of mind are ultimately at odds. One tries to generalize while the other demands specificity.

  8. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ReflecttcelfeR View Post
    Isn't this described through the perceiving functions? Or am I confusing them again?

    Wouldn't a change just alter the functions. I suppose I don't see how changing how we think escapes these definitions it would just seem that we'd have to change type.
    Exactly, which is why it is not a perfect system, and why is impossible to place it all neatly in a box.

    Which, if my memory serves me.. Is what you were looking for in your OP.

  9. #19
    ReflecTcelfeR
    Guest

    Default

    I don't think I'm explaining myself very well. That is what I wish to figure out, but what I was trying to say was this: Doesn't this theory compensate with change by encompassing a set of 16 combinations that you can have with functions? The theory compensates for change through allowing the fluidity of being able to change types at any time. Sorry if I didn't explain that very well the first time.

  10. #20
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatsWhatHeSaid View Post
    If we're talking about typology, then no, because it's a classification system. I think the ideal situation would be to look at neuroscience, examine your own experience, and create a model for how your mind works.
    I know you're ignoring me (sooo growed up!) but I'm gonna explain where you're wrong anyway.

    Jungian Typology is not, first and foremost, a classification system. That work was done later building on Jung's ideas about cognitive functions (Jung actually said such an exercise would be a waste of time).

    We have a theory of functions (model of cognition) and a theory of types (a typology). Even if you don't think typing people is helpful, that says nothing about how accurate or useful cognitive function theory is. The OP is asking about CF theory. Does it cover everything in human cognition? If it doesn't, what else is there? Well, what else is there, we perceive (things that are in front of us and things that are intuited) and we make judgments (based on objective or subjective criteria). What else is there? How can we refine the model? What benefit would there be to such refinement?

    A theory that explains 1) what ideal living is and 2) how to get there would seem much better suited. Typology doesn't do that, unless you're talking about the shadow and accepting the shadow.
    That's asking typology to do something that it's not designed to do and then calling it a failure. Which is illogical.
    "Ideal living"/ how to get there is different for every person (I don't even believe there is such a thing). That doesn't invalidate the study of what it is that we already are and have in common.

    Well, to me one is a class and one is a member in a class. An orange is an orange and it's class is fruit. If you wanted to study the composition of an orange and it's life cycle, using a classification system wouldn't be very helpful. It would tell you that the orange is a fruit and not a vegetable, but that's not very helpful.
    You are just talking about hierarchies.

    subcomponent-->component-->object-->subclass-->class

    Classification systems contain useful metadata (inheritance, for example).
    In order to study an orange, one MUST use a classification system, even if only an informal one. How else does one identify an orange? You look at characteristics (colour, smell, texture, size, taste, etc) and you create a label "orange". That's the first step in understanding anything. There has to be an abstract idea that is "orange" before you can begin to understand it. Otherwise, every time you encounter an orange you'd be like, wtf is this thing? And go through the laborious process of rediscovering its properties. That's a waste of time. That's why we have classification systems.

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatsWhatHeSaid View Post
    Think about neuroscience and how the brain works. Think about cognitive psychology and language. Think about the way you actually think. There's a lot more going on than cognitive functions. Memory, language, processing biases, personality disorders, the mechanics of anxiety, desire, impulses, pleasure, pain and reward, and the other 100 billion ways you can type people (need for stimulation, need for cognition, restlessness, sexual proclivities, superstition, the list is endless). Type theories are 1) not equipped or designed to account for this stuff and 2) don't explain how any of this actually operates in a person's experience. It's the wrong tool for the job.
    That's not a good argument. Just because an area of study is discrete and not comprehensive doesn't mean it's invalid. That's like saying an OB/GYN isn't a doctor because he's not a Gerontologist.
    We have labels and classification systems for pscyhopathology - it's not appropriate for a typology that addresses normal behaviour to incorporate those elements. Memory and language - those are fields of study in their own right, and they don't shed light on personality and personality differences - which is what Typology is all about.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-19-2015, 02:50 AM
  2. I have been wondering about this.
    By Haphazard in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-18-2010, 10:31 PM
  3. [NF] How often do you wonder if you're being yourself?
    By thinkinjazz in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 10-05-2009, 03:31 PM
  4. [ISFP] ISFPs - Do you have the hermit/non-conformist/wonderer/philosopher tendencies?
    By swordpath in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 12-31-2008, 12:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO