User Tag List

First 3456 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 51

  1. #41
    Retired Member Wonkavision's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    1,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    MBTI is just a set of adjectives. If there's a situation where other adjectives have more descriptive power, you should use those.

    I see people trying to twist all sorts of nonsense into the MBTI framework -- it makes no sense to me. If you can minimize description length with functions, do it. If not, don't.
    I agree with this.

    Plus, I'm not sure what the point is in trying to come up with some Grand Theory of Everything in regard to personality type.

    Trying to account for everyone's individual experiences seems (not only IMPOSSIBLE, but) pointless and unnecessary.

    The existing theories are extremely effective (barring Socionics, for me anyway---I can't make heads or tails of it. )
    __________________


    I'M OUTTA HERE.

    IT'S BEEN FUN.

    TAKE CARE.

    PEACE OUT!!!


  2. #42
    Senior Member ThatsWhatHeSaid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    7,233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Cognitive functions can describe the entirety of ONE framework for understanding cognition. In that framework, it is all expansive.

    But that framework isn't very useful in most situations.

    It's just like talking about neurotransmitters -- sometimes it's a nice little framework, but most of the time it doesn't say shit about nuanced personality.

    MBTI is just a set of adjectives. If there's a situation where other adjectives have more descriptive power, you should use those.

    I see people trying to twist all sorts of nonsense into the MBTI framework -- it makes no sense to me. If you can minimize description length with functions, do it. If not, don't.
    Totally agreed. We're on the same page.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wonkavision View Post
    I agree with this.

    Plus, I'm not sure what the point is in trying to come up with some Grand Theory of Everything in regard to personality type.
    We're not trying to come up with a type theory. We're coming up with a comprehensive personality theory. Difference being, type is used to categorize, this would be used to understand general experience, pathology, and everything in between. How can you say that's not awesome?

  3. #43
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wonkavision View Post
    I agree with this.

    Plus, I'm not sure what the point is in trying to come up with some Grand Theory of Everything in regard to personality type.

    Trying to account for everyone's individual experiences seems (not only IMPOSSIBLE, but) pointless and unnecessary.

    The existing theories are extremely effective (barring Socionics, for me anyway---I can't make heads or tails of it. )
    The thing is, MBTI is incredibly limited.

    Different situations call for different amounts of precision. In other words, sometimes you use 1 dimension to "rank" people (like IQ for example), other times you might use 50 dimensions. It all depends on the cost/benefit of using more variables (more variables takes more processing but is also more exact).

    MBTI is only a good framework when the situation calls for about 4 dimensions, and even then, that's only true if those four variables can be accurately captured by the dichotomies already defined.

    There are actually a surprising amount of situations in which this is true (which is why I'm interested in the theory at all). But it just isn't going to cut it very often.

    I like MBTI, and I wish it was more useful. But then again, for it to be more useful would mean you'd have to be able to add and subtract variables, and it'd get too confusing to even call a good system.

  4. #44
    Retired Member Wonkavision's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    1,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatsWhatHeSaid View Post

    We're not trying to come up with a type theory. We're coming up with a comprehensive personality theory. Difference being, type is used to categorize, this would be used to understand general experience, pathology, and everything in between. How can you say that's not awesome?
    In all seriousness, yeah---that's an awesome goal.

    If you're serious about pursuing it, allow me to cheer you on!
    __________________


    I'M OUTTA HERE.

    IT'S BEEN FUN.

    TAKE CARE.

    PEACE OUT!!!


  5. #45
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    MBTI
    eNxp
    Enneagram
    5/7
    Socionics
    eii
    Posts
    849

    Default

    I read through this thread and I read some of what others have posted, but I wanted to just jump in here with a more self-centered post - meaning it doesn't flow with the debate going on here and isn't directly related to Cognitive functions or personality theory, but I just wanted to throw my two cents in on the topic...

    In response to the OP, any system will have its flaws and limitations - you work with and interact with enough man-made systems, I don't care how efficient, you will run into limitations. Cognitive functions are no exception.

    As far as understanding others, in a personality/disorder sense, I don't care so I won't touch that.

    For myself personally, personality theory is a hobby and is interesting, but it's not what matters to me, mostly because of that fact that I don't care about categorizing others. I'm a solid introvert and as such, I have no interest in other people. Any connection I have with others is through shared or connected past or current experiences. Admittedly though, I've had a lot of experiences that make relating to others relatively doable despite my personality.

    As far as understanding my own psyche, there is only one division - that between ego and grace. These two terms I use based on my own understanding of concepts in Buddhist philosophy and Catholic mysticism, respectively.

    Ego, I associate with: desire, attachment, ambition, hope, drive, passion, suffering, et al.

    Grace, I associate with: stillness, letting go, discipline, acceptance, et al.

    The interplay of these two forces is what interests me in myself and in turn, if I care to, I will apply this in understanding others, but only among the elements that are already familiar to me, if that makes any sense. The understanding of these concepts are not guided by training, schooling, system building, or any of the like. They are guided by an understanding found from trial-and-error, pain, and post-pain analysis. Suffering and emotion are the foundations of this "system." It's tough to explain but this is a very rough idea.

    Any other type of system building, I find, is essentially a defensive act. Logical thinking, in my pov, is the act of separation that begins with the initial separation an individual has made within themselves, within the world they see, or between themselves and the world. At any rate, logical thinking, the foundation of system building, is at its heart an act of separation. And at the heart of separation is something that comes part and parcel with it - protection.

    Not that protection is a bad thing. I guess what I'm saying is that if you really want to understand something/anything in the most thorough way, whether it's yourself or others, personality theory, economics, philosophy, et al. - in my experience, there is absolutely no substitute for the combination of trial-and-error, pain/failure, and analysis. The protection/logical system that comes almost effortlessly out of THAT cycle will be the most thorough and complete system you will have regarding any subject or topic.

  6. #46
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SecondBest View Post
    In response to the OP, any system will have its flaws and limitations - you work with and interact with enough man-made systems, I don't care how efficient, you will run into limitations. Cognitive functions are no exception.
    No offense, but that seems like a bit of a cop out answer. Some systems can add variables to themselves as much as necessary -- those systems have a much greater scope than MBTI could ever hope to have.

    A system I can think of with essentially zero problems is a neural net. It can add and subtract variables at will, and describe essentially anything that you input. We use these in cognitive science to model brain behaviors.

    Edit: here's the lab I used to work in that used neural network models: Computational Cognitive Science Lab - Home

  7. #47
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    MBTI
    eNxp
    Enneagram
    5/7
    Socionics
    eii
    Posts
    849

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    No offense, but that seems like a bit of a cop out answer. Some systems can add variables to themselves as much as necessary -- those systems have a much greater scope than MBTI could ever hope to have.

    A system I can think of with essentially zero problems is a neural net. It can add and subtract variables at will, and describe essentially anything that you input. We use these in cognitive science to model brain behaviors.

    Edit: here's the lab I used to work in that used neural network models: Computational Cognitive Science Lab - Home
    Fair enough, Evan. I think I miswrote what I actually meant so let me revise - I can see how an adaptable/adaptive system such as the one you're talking about that's modeled after brain behavior would be very thorough, and as far as functionality is concerned, you're probably right. But the systems I'm more familiar will always have one essential point of vulnerability - the first principle. If that first principle is true, then the system is true. If the first principle is false, then the system is false, though the falsity of that first principle, I would say, is directly proportional to how many flaws and limitations you will find in the overall system.

    As far as the human psyche is concerned, what I am positing there at the end of my post is that, in my opinion, the truest first principle in the understanding of the human psyche is the cycle I roughly describe centered around one empirical concept: suffering.

    So yes, theoretically, I agree that a potentially flawless and limitless system can exist.

  8. #48
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SecondBest View Post
    Fair enough, Evan. I think I miswrote what I actually meant so let me revise - I can see how an adaptable/adaptive system such as the one you're talking about that's modeled after brain behavior would be very thorough, and as far as functionality is concerned, you're probably right. But the systems I'm more familiar will always have one essential point of vulnerability - the first principle. If that first principle is true, then the system is true. If the first principle is false, then the system is false, though the falsity of that first principle, I would say, is directly proportional to how many flaws and limitations you will find in the overall system.

    As far as the human psyche is concerned, what I am positing there at the end of my post is that, in my opinion, the truest first principle in the understanding of the human psyche is the cycle I roughly describe centered around one empirical concept: suffering.

    So yes, theoretically, I agree that a potentially flawless and limitless system can exist.
    You are right, though, about the first principle thing.

    Everyone's always going to have one leap in their belief system. My philosophy is, well, might as well have only one!

    Bayes' Theorem is my first principle

  9. #49
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    MBTI
    eNxp
    Enneagram
    5/7
    Socionics
    eii
    Posts
    849

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    You are right, though, about the first principle thing.

    Everyone's always going to have one leap in their belief system. My philosophy is, well, might as well have only one!

    Bayes' Theorem is my first principle
    The key idea is that the probability of event A (e.g., having breast cancer) given event B (having a positive mammogram) depends not only on the relationship between A and B (i.e., the accuracy of mammograms) but on the absolute probability (occurrence) of A not concerning B (i.e., the incidence of breast cancer in general), and the absolute probability of B not concerning A (i.e. the probability of a positive mammogram).
    - From Wikipedia
    Ha, interesting first principle. I don't want to derail this thread by discussing the Bayes' theorem too much, but yeah, I didn't know what this was until I saw the Monty Hall problem in the wikipedia article. I agree that this is far more thorough in covering the bases. As you said, I think too often people draw their conclusions far too quickly based on both leaps in logic and assumptions about the nature of certain events.

    But the thing about this theorem, though, is that it's a kind of meta-systemic theorem - chiefly concerned with the nature of the logical approach, and not necessarily the formulation of the first principle. I guess what I'm asking is, if you were to come up with a positive system that only involved a specific realm, either theoretical or otherwise, (e.g. a new automobile engine system that maximizes fuel efficiency and power), how would this theorem help you come up with the first principle in each case?

    Where I'm going with this is that though Bayes' theorem may be an excellent first principle with respect to the logical approach, it doesn't address the issue of formulating the first principle in the hopes of building a positive system and applying Bayes' theorem. Even in the case of the automobile engine, I think that cycle of trial-and-error, pain/suffering/failure, and analysis still applies in knowing which "leap" to take. The answer being, pretty much any leap, and then backtrack/analyze until you figure out the right one. Often times this will involve going very far into building the system, and then running into a serious problem and having to trash the whole thing and start all over.

    And then we get into the cycles of backtracking, haha. But out of respect for the thread topic, I'll stop here.

  10. #50
    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
    Oh, ye of little understanding...

    This isn't a classification scheme. It's a model of the building blocks of experience. Since it takes EVERYTHING into account, as opposed to other typological schemes which do nothing like that, it's more comprehensive and able to predict ALL personality differences and quirks, including all disorders.
    Does that include narcissism?
    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