[Other] Is Typology Crackpot Science?

[highlander]

How do you think Typology advocates score on these attributes?

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2006/P2678.pdf

12 points - Public verification - Is the theory publicly verifiable?
12 points - Predictability - To what extent can the technique or science be applied to the future?
13 points - Controlled experiments - Can controlled experiments prove out the theory or parts of it?
5 points - Occam's razor - Lacking other evidence, is the simpler explanation is usually the right one
10 points - Fruitfulness - Does application of the theory lead to fruitful results?
10 points - Authority - Is the theory backed by "authority"?
8 points - Ability to communicate - Are there accepted methods of communicating the parts of the theory?
5 points - Humility - Do advocates of the theory demonstrate humility?
5 points - Open mindedness - Are theorists dogmatic and arbitrary or measured in tone?
Negative 5 points - The Fulton non sequitur - Is the advocate of the theory suffering from the martyr complex? (i.e., they laughed Fulton; they're laughing at me...)
Negative 5 points - Paranoia - Do advocates of the theory think others are out to get them?
Negative 5 points - The dollar complex - Are the advocates overly impressed with the value of their discovery?
5 points - The statistics compulsion - Statistics are not only used but continuously explained

 

[highlander]

I come up with 50!

 

[highlander]

[MENTION=3325]Mole[/MENTION]

 

[Luke O]

Did a quick score in my head (I'm commuting), I scored Typology as 60.

Astrology I scored 8.

 

[violet_crown]

[MENTION=3325]Mole[/MENTION]

#modtroll

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

31

Are there controlled experiments?
Is it the simplest explanation?
Is there an accepted method of communication about the theory?
Are advocates open minded?
Are statistics not only used but continuously explained?

 

[Riva]

There is no fixed I
What we consider as I is a combination factors such as body, perceptions, sensations, mental formations and consciousness
However, these are ever changing factors
The factor that changes the least is the body which ironically is what we see changing every year much to our annoyance
The rest changes so fast it is foolish to ever think this is me

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Jung's theories have some interesting and legitimate categories - especially the abstract vs. concrete and the objective vs. subjective. I don't think this includes every core component to human psychology, so the results are not comprehensive. I like Jung's theory better than MBTI, which is much less philosophical. Also, just about anyone can claim to be an MBTI expert and promote their ideas about it which can be complete distortions of Jung's theory.

I also find it is easiest to type an acquaintance level person. If I don't know them at all it is limited in application, but strangely enough, when I know someone too well, I can see more than the four functions at play, and I find it difficult to pigeon hole myself, my family, or close friends into one obvious MBTI type.

From the research I've read, only introversion and extroversion provide valid, consistent results when the test is taken in several contexts. There is also an aspect to personality involving ego strength, or perhaps even the Freudian superego, ego, and id, that fundamentally affects the way someone perceives, judges, thinks, and behaves that is not addressed in this theory. For example, certitude doesn't seem to map to type as consistently as it should for analyzing fundamental components of personality.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Also, just about anyone can claim to be an MBTI expert and promote their ideas about it which can be complete distortions of Jung's theory.

I'm developing a system that will ignore the Jungian functions for this and other reasons. No, it won't be Keirsey mark II.

 

[fetus]

This will be an unpopular opinion, but I don't put a huge amount of stock into typology. I think it can be very helpful for personal development, and perhaps a bit for understanding others, but some people take it way too far. Stereotypes, forcing people into boxes, etc. People will go to great lengths to tell people, "You're an ESFP; you don't use Fe!" Technically, that's true, but I don't think humans work in little exact boxes. All in all, it's not really as verifiable as stuff we see under a microscope, so we shouldn't treat it as though it is...

 

[grey_beard]

I think I came up with 27.
I'd call it a legitimate humanities discipline, not a science.