Generalisation and MBTI

[BadOctopus]

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.

Now that is one great, big, thumping generalization if I ever read one.

I realize I'm going out on a limb by saying this, but I'm pretty sure that nobody on this forum genuinely believes that MBTI, or any other typology, is 100% accurate, or that the descriptions of each type fit each individual to a T. Obviously people aren't going to think, feel, or behave exactly as the Type Indicator predicts. Two people might both be tested as ENFPs, and have completely different views, tastes, opinions, etc. MBTI doesn't define who we are; it just gives us a better idea of how to understand those who think different than we do.

I could be wrong, but it seems like you're taking MBTI more seriously than the people who are actually interested in it.

 

[Mole]

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

If everyone is different, then no one is different.

 

[danseen]

two apples, one green and one red, aren't different....

OK.

 

[BadOctopus]

two apples, one green and one red, aren't different....

OK.

Color is an illusion. All cats are grey in the dark. Or... something.

 

[hacbad macbar]

Generalization is the extraction of common essences of many specific cases. So there is no good or bad generalization. Only generalization. If not a generalization, it is a simplification, and simplification is a logical fallacy. And, simplification create ideology. If you look from the capitalist perspective, ie. with capitalist-shaped glasses MBTI is an ideological manner of classifying people into 16 different 'working' classes and put them on a lager.

 

[danseen]

Color is an illusion. All cats are grey in the dark. Or... something.

Everybody is human, yet we all have variations of humanity...we all are bipedal, can abstract, etc. but are such in unique and boundless ways.....If you and he dispute that people are not different, well that's your view, but the basic fact you don't look the same as all other people is proof of this....Don't be facetious or unnecessarily obtuse/pedantic.

I think anybody who sees MBTI as absolute is...well silly. As every human is different, then it lends to all ESFPs not being wild party animals, or all INTJs being like Sheldon Cooper....Some ESFPs may have partying, some INTJs may like it...all things in life are subjective, and especially humans.

 

[BadOctopus]

Everybody is human, yet we all have variations of humanity...we all are bipedal, can abstract, etc. but are such in unique and boundless ways.....If you and he dispute that people are not different, well that's your view, but the basic fact you don't look the same as all other people is proof of this....Don't be facetious or unnecessarily obtuse/pedantic.

Actually, I agree that we are all different, and impossible to pigeonhole into 16 convenient types. My interest in MBTI is mostly for fun. It's not infallible, but it's still interesting.

I was just joking about the "All cats are grey" thing. I guess that was hard to tell from my post. Why is there no sarcasm font!?

 

[hacbad macbar]

Actually, I agree that we are all different, and impossible to pigeonhole into 16 convenient types. My interest in MBTI is mostly for fun. It's not infallible, but it's still interesting.

I was just joking about the "All cats are grey" thing. I guess that was hard to tell from my post. Why is there no sarcasm font!?

There's no reason for 'sarcasm font'. Your observation is quite excellent. I was not being sarcastic when I gave you like.

 

[Mole]

The difference is between the literate individual and the tribe.

Go to Papua New Guinea and spend some time in a tribe there and you will find the whole tribe shares the same emotion at the same time.

On the other hand read a book alone and you will find you have your private emotions not shared by those around you.

So being on Typology Central is more like being in a tribe (an etribe in this case) than reading a book alone. Like a traditional tribe we share our emotions across the globe in real time.

This is what we mean by the death of the individual and indeed the death of the God of the Book.

 

[Mole]

you're taking MBTI more seriously than the people who are actually interested in it.

Trivialization is a psychological defence. So we ask what does it defend against? And who is it manipulating?

Feminists regularly complain of trivialization, and bullying is trivialized by saying, it's all just a joke, don't take it seriously.

So trivialization is a defence against the psyche and is an attack on those who are examining the psyche in good faith.

So trivialization is a psychological attack carried out in bad faith.

 

[Tater]

all broad, sweeping statements are false.

 

[BadOctopus]

Trivialization is a psychological defence. So we ask what does it defend against? And who is it manipulating?

Feminists regularly complain of trivialization, and bullying is trivialized by saying, it's all just a joke, don't take it seriously.

So trivialization is a defence against the psyche and is an attack on those who are examining the psyche in good faith.

So trivialization is a psychological attack carried out in bad faith.

You have the right to believe whatever you want, of course. But I wasn't trivializing anything. And I'm not sure who or what you think I'm attacking. I only said that the majority of us who are interested in MBTI do not believe it is infallible, because to assume such a thing would be ridiculous. I don't take it seriously, and I certainly don't think it's a cult. An amusing diversion.

I can't help but notice that you have a habit of reducing everything to bullying. You do know the difference between bullying and a differing opinion, I trust?

 

[Pionart]

I personally spend so much time absorbed in Jungian typology that I guess it could be called a religion.

 

[Mole]

I personally spend so much time absorbed in Jungian typology that I guess it could be called a religion.

Remember, we become what we worship.

And as you say, you spend so much time absorbed in Jungian typology that you guess it could be called a religion. So an interesting question to ask would be what is it in Jungian typology are you inclined to worship? And if we can answer that question, we will start to know what you are becoming.

 

[Pionart]

Remember, we become what we worship.

And as you say, you spend so much time absorbed in Jungian typology that you guess it could be called a religion. So an interesting question to ask would be what is it in Jungian typology are you inclined to worship? And if we can answer that question, we will start to know what you are becoming.

"And since time unknown, there was the world, and there were the beings of the world, who were like a world unto themselves.

And the beings were given the ability to see the world, and the world could be seen. And the beings were given the ability to choose of the world, and the world could be chosen within.

And through the sight of the world, it was shown what was, for each thing was what it was, but each thing was more than what it was, for each thing was effected by, and in turn effected, all other things, and this linking together was also seen. And when the thing was seen as it was, and when the thing was united with the nature of how effect comes to be, the thing was seen fully

And to choose, one had to know what was to be chosen, for some things ought to come to be, while others should not, and it had to be known what one thing was to be called and how it was made, so that it could be chosen correctly. And when these things were known, the proper choice could be made.

And each of these things were placed upon the world, and upon the beings of the world, who were a world unto themselves.

But the beings were not created uniformly, but were distorted, so that each saw clearly in only one of the four ways, what was or what were the effects, and only of the world, or of the world which was in the being. And each of them likewise could know only one of the four aspects to the choice to be made.

So it was commanded unto them: seek out beyond yourself, the opposite way of seeing and choosing, for only then can the proper sight be given, and the proper choice be made. For the hot shall be immersed in cold, and shall then know hot and cold, and be at the proper temperature.

And so the beings saw the world, but only in a limited way, and chose in the world, but only in a limited way. But forevermore they searched beyond their limits, so that they may see fully and choose fully.

And thus it was told."

 

[Pionart]

The MBTI is a model for how humans comprehend of reality. It -generalises- our understanding into a specific model. The basis for the model, is that, supposedly, it is how we naturally see things. This is reflected in the language we use for things. And by knowing how we see the world, we become aware of the biases we have, so by bringing the background into the foreground we become more aware. And by knowing our particular bias, we know of the opposite bias, and so can develop our opposite side to become more whole. It is a theory of opposites uniting.

It is worshipped for its seemingly simple structure given to the many complexities of life. It is worshipped for the goals it gives, for how to become whole.

And when we are told how to understand things, and then what to do about it, what more do we need?

Simplicity begets simplicity.

Also, it is worshipped for its esoteric, confusing nature. Profound truths are always on the tip of the tongue, but forever remain there. It is so apparent, but is never fully made explicit, it resides always in the subconscious of the mind, as a problem to be solved, and forever requiring solution.

 

[Cellmold]

Trivialization is a psychological defence. So we ask what does it defend against? And who is it manipulating?

Feminists regularly complain of trivialization, and bullying is trivialized by saying, it's all just a joke, don't take it seriously.

So trivialization is a defence against the psyche and is an attack on those who are examining the psyche in good faith.

So trivialization is a psychological attack carried out in bad faith.

 

[Mademoiselle]

True,
Generally is like a blurry image, less accurate but gives you enough information.
Surprisingly* I findMBTI theory very practical, interesting.
___
*Of course everything has a reason, but it’d be boring to bring out the details of what caused this, just like the blurry image this is all we need.
As for a profession I’d prefer to dive in more deeply that’s just where things need to be.

 

[Mole]

True,
Generally is like a blurry image, less accurate but gives you enough information.
Surprisingly* I findMBTI theory very practical, interesting.
___
*Of course everything has a reason, but it’d be boring to bring out the details of what caused this, just like the blurry image this is all we need.
As for a profession I’d prefer to dive in more deeply that’s just where things need to be.

Generalisation is a precise hierarchy. So we generalise the particular, then we generalise the generalisation of the particular, and we generalise the generalisation of the generalisation of the particular, and so on.

At each level of generalisation we get different effects.

And generalisations fit inside each other like Russian dolls.

For instance, if we enter a trance we get specific effects such as our critical mind goes to sleep and our imaginative mind wakes up. But if we enter another trance within the first trance we get different effects. And at fourth level trance the effects are extraordinary, because at fourth level we can't tell the difference between imagination and reality, and whatever is suggested to us is perceived by us as real.

And interestingly at fourth level trance direct religious experience occurs. In most religious traditions this is called mysticism. Perhaps Sufi mysticism is familiar to you.

 

[Mademoiselle]

Generalisation is a precise hierarchy. So we generalise the particular, then we generalise the generalisation of the particular, and we generalise the generalisation of the generalisation of the particular, and so on.

At each level of generalisation we get different effects.

And generalisations fit inside each other like Russian dolls.

For instance, if we enter a trance we get specific effects such as our critical mind goes to sleep and our imaginative mind wakes up. But if we enter another trance within the first trance we get different effects. And at fourth level trance the effects are extraordinary, because at fourth level we can't tell the difference between imagination and reality, and whatever is suggested to us is perceived by us as real.

And interestingly at fourth level trance direct religious experience occurs. In most religious traditions this is called mysticism. Perhaps Sufi mysticism is familiar to you.

Yes, familiar but unexperienced.
It’s all case by case, and totally depends on how you need to use the subject to select the perfect generalisation level based on you.