I Have Often Wondered...

[ReflecTcelfeR]

How far can cognitive functions go when catorgorizing personality? And/Or what are the barriers that keep cognitive functions from describing the entire human psyche? Why can this not describe as a whole? I often hear that this puts us in a box, what stops it from putting us in there entirely?

 

[nolla]

People categorize each other anyways. There are advantages with categorizing people through their types. This isn't so prejudiced as the more popular ways of categorizing (for example, race). And there are no clear lines that separate types.

Of course you'll also have to not take it too seriously.

 

[Wonkavision]

People categorize each other anyways. There are advantages with categorizing people through their types. This isn't so prejudiced as the more popular ways of categorizing (for example, race). And there are no clear lines that separate types.

Oh man, I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

The problem is this. Type theories are really just classification schemes. When you classify something, you have to generalize--pick some theme to group phenomena--and thereby reduce something into something more convenient and manageable. But in reducing, you also lose information. So a type theory will never, by definition, adequately describe reality. It can't because it's abstract, i.e., disconnected from reality, by nature. If you want to be accurate, you have to resist categorizing and look at components and subcomponents. You have to look at what things are and avoid labeling and categorizing for convenience.

 

[Wonkavision]

The problem is this. Type theories are really just classification schemes. When you classify something, you have to generalize--pick some theme to group phenomena--and thereby reduce something into something more convenient and manageable. But in reducing, you also lose information. So a type theory will never, by definition, adequately describe reality. It can't because it's abstract, i.e., disconnected from reality, by nature. If you want to be accurate, you have to resist categorizing and look at components and subcomponents. You have to look at what things are and avoid labeling and categorizing for convenience.

Yeah, that would be an AWESOME way to CLASSIFY things---to describe them in such specific and detailed ways that it would CEASE to BE CLASSIFICATION.

Or are you suggesting we should throw out classification altogether?

Either way its foolish.

Way to go, Genius.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Yeah, that would be an AWESOME way to CLASSIFY things---to describe them in such specific and detailed ways that it would CEASE to BE CLASSIFICATION.

Or are you suggesting we should throw out classification altogether?

Either way its foolish.

Way to go, Genius.

Heh. I'm not saying classification schemes don't serve their purpose. They can be useful for sorting things. Animals, plants, people, whatever.

But what they're not good for is describing discrete phenomena.

 

[Wonkavision]

Heh. I'm not saying classification schemes don't serve their purpose. They can be useful for sorting things. Animals, plants, people, whatever.

But what they're not good for is describing discrete phenomena.

Ok, well, let me ask you this:

How would one be able to acheive personal growth or understand people who are very different from themselves without some kind of point of reference--such as a typological model?

I'm not saying that personal growth or understanding people different from you IS important to you. I don't know if it is or isn't.

But IF it were important to SOMEONE, how would THEY do it without typological models?

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Ok, well, let me ask you this:

How would one be able to acheive personal growth or understand people who are very different from themselves without some kind of point of reference--such as a typological model?

I'm not saying that personal growth or understanding people different from you IS important to you. I don't know if it is or isn't.

But IF it were important to SOMEONE, how would THEY do it without typological models?

Did you not grow at all before you learned about typology?

 

[Wonkavision]

Did you not grow at all before you learned about typology?

Ok, fair enough.

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

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.

 

[Salomé]

The problem is this. Type theories are really just classification schemes. When you classify something, you have to generalize--pick some theme to group phenomena--and thereby reduce something into something more convenient and manageable. But in reducing, you also lose information. So a type theory will never, by definition, adequately describe reality. It can't because it's abstract, i.e., disconnected from reality, by nature. If you want to be accurate, you have to resist categorizing and look at components and subcomponents. You have to look at what things are and avoid labeling and categorizing for convenience.

In what way do "components" and "subcomponents" differ from categories and subcategories? Are they not also an abstraction? Isn't all understanding of phenomena based on some measure of abstraction and filtering of raw data to discard what is irrelevant and focus on what is important? (Even if you rely on intuition, you are still using an internal model, albeit an unconscious one). The architecture of cognition relies on creating and refining models. Much of that process is unconscious, but making it conscious means we can challenge it. We can measure how accurately it represents reality.
Without identifying what something is / what it is not (classification) how do we build effective models to predict outcomes/behaviour?

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

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.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

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.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

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?

 

[Arclight]

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.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

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.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

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.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

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.

 

[Arclight]

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.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

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.

 

[Salomé]

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.

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.