Generalisation and MBTI

[Mole]

"That's a generalisation", say the meretricious, not realising that mbti generalises the 7.1 billion alive today into 16 types.

 

[indra]

but i really don't get along with infp's

 

[Mole]

but i really don't get along with infp's

So if we divide 7.1 billion by 16 we get about 5 hundred million. So according to mbti you don't get along with about 5 hundred million infps.

This is a spectular generalisation.

Can you imagine all those 5 hundred million infps arrayed in front of you, and you don't get on with any of them.

 

[indra]

So if we divide 7.1 billion by 16 we get about 5 hundred million. So according to mbti you don't get along with about 5 hundred million infps.

This is a spectular generalisation.

Can you imagine all those 5 hundred million infps arrayed in front of you, and you don't get on with any of them.

that's the joke

laugh with me, mole

 

[Mole]

that's the joke

laugh with me, mole

I am not laughing because I am regularly told not to generalise.

"That's a generalisation", they tell me.

But they don't know or care that a generalisation is a way of jumping from one set of particulars to another. Generalisation is a way of discovering new perspectives and new ideas.

All they know is that generalisation is not PC and they are the meretricious PC police.

 

[miss fortune]

what lovely hypocrisy you display

 

[Bush]

So we have a generalization. Using it poses some questions. Does it provide a good heuristic for some given purpose--understanding others, finding dates, exploring human nature ... ? What important information does it gloss over?

As MBTI is used 'round these parts, though, the answers are "pretty much never" and "a lot."

 

[Mole]

what lovely hypocrisy you display

Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue.

 

[Mole]

So we have a generalization. Using it poses some questions. Does it provide a good heuristic for some given purpose--understanding others, finding dates, exploring human nature ... ? What important information does it gloss over?

As MBTI is used 'round these parts, though, the answers are "pretty much never" and "a lot."

Generalisations are not inherently good. There are good generalisations and bad generalisations. And learning to speak in contexts or generalisations, is learning to distinguish good from bad generalistions.

I do understand that learning to speak in contexts is a higher level of cognitive ability than speaking only in particulars. However many get lost when they move from the realm of particulars, and in their chagrin, disrespect contexts.

Contexts of course can be quite disorientating, as changing the context changes the meaning of the text. So when we change the context and so the meaning, they cry in psychological pain, "that is not what I meant, you are twisting my meaning", not knowing of course that the meaning of any post is its response.

 

[Pionart]

Gender generalises the population into 2 main sets.

Just because there are 16 types in MBTI, that doesn't mean it's saying everyone in each type is exactly the same, just that they have something in common. And it doesn't mean you can't divide people by other distinctions.

 

[Haven]

I suppose it's how you use it. One can use MBTI to identify someone's type related traits and isolate those from what makes them unique.

 

[Mal12345]

So if we divide 7.1 billion by 16 we get about 5 hundred million. So according to mbti you don't get along with about 5 hundred million infps.

This is a spectular generalisation.

Can you imagine all those 5 hundred million infps arrayed in front of you, and you don't get on with any of them.

That's 284 million INFPs according to the percentages.

 

[PocketFullOf]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that people are not individuals.

 

[Jaguar]

There are good generalisations and bad generalisations.

Thank you for that lesson in black and white, um, thinking.

 

[miss fortune]

Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue.

sometimes I wonder if you need a special helmet or a bridge...

 

[danseen]

Erm...they're meant to be generalisations.....Every person of every type is unique, but with unique blend of each category.

 

[Mole]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that people are not individuals.

Compulsory universal literacy created the literate individual, and the voluntary electric media such as telephone, radio, TV, and the internet, create electronic tribes.

So the literate individual is now the content of the electric media.

So the literate individual is in effect obsolete. And being obsolete rises in status. So we have 320 million Americans each saying, I am an individual, I am an individual, I am an individual ............

But we live in an electric world where God is dead, the individual is dead, and the author is dead. But we cling onto them as though our life depends on it. But it is literacy that depends on God, the individual, and the author.

We invented the printing press in 1440 and the very first book we printed was the Bible and the Bible gave us God, the individual, and the author.

We were called the people of the book: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. But we are no longer the people of the book, we are the people of the electric media, just look in front of you now.

In the book the author gives the meaning to the text. For instance, in the Bible God gives the meaning to the text. But in the electric media the response in real time gives the meaning to the etext. So in the electric media we say, the meaning of any communication is its response.

The individual is dead.

 

[Mole]

Erm...they're meant to be generalisations.....Every person of every type is unique, but with unique blend of each category.

C'mon, every person is unique because they have a unique individual soul which can be saved by the blood of Jesus.

On the other hand we form part of the Communion of Saints, the Body of Christ, and we are saved in and by community.

So what are you? An lonely individual Protestant, or a communal Catholic?

 

[Mole]

I suppose it's how you use it. One can use MBTI to identify someone's type related traits and isolate those from what makes them unique.

We create our tools and our tools create us. It has nothing to do how we use it, for it is using us.

And dividing 7.1 billion people into 16 types is ridiculous.

So mbti is a way of shutting down our minds and our sense of the ridiculous, in order to hypnotise us into the cult of mbti.

 

[danseen]

OK....So everybody doesn't look differently, and have a different personality....