User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 51

  1. #1
    ReflecTcelfeR
    Guest

    Default I Have Often Wondered...

    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?
    Last edited by ReflecTcelfeR; 09-16-2010 at 09:27 AM.

  2. #2
    Senor Membrane
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,190

    Default

    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.

  3. #3
    Retired Member Wonkavision's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    1,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nolla View Post
    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.
    __________________


    I'M OUTTA HERE.

    IT'S BEEN FUN.

    TAKE CARE.

    PEACE OUT!!!


  4. #4
    Senior Member ThatsWhatHeSaid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    7,233

    Default

    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.

  5. #5
    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
    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.
    __________________


    I'M OUTTA HERE.

    IT'S BEEN FUN.

    TAKE CARE.

    PEACE OUT!!!


  6. #6
    Senior Member ThatsWhatHeSaid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    7,233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wonkavision View Post
    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.

  7. #7
    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
    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?
    __________________


    I'M OUTTA HERE.

    IT'S BEEN FUN.

    TAKE CARE.

    PEACE OUT!!!


  8. #8
    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, 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?

  9. #9
    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
    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.
    __________________


    I'M OUTTA HERE.

    IT'S BEEN FUN.

    TAKE CARE.

    PEACE OUT!!!


  10. #10
    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
    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?
    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