Let's "level" about type issues

[Natrushka]

When I read how this Type is that way and that Type behaves this way...
I become annoyed...
because people are individuals not types.

Bonus:

I then hit the 'back' button and contemplate the the 15 seonds of my life I'll never get back.

[Athenian200]

Originally Posted by Natrushka

When I read how this Type is that way and that Type behaves this way...
I become annoyed...
because people are individuals not types.

But the type an individual tests as influences their behavior, even if not all members of a particular type act that way to the same extent. People should be treated as individuals, but it's still reasonable to discuss the behavior of a type in general, preferably separately from the individuals who comprise that type.

[proteanmix]

Originally Posted by ygolo

I'll suggest, the following form:

When:<something specific (within limits of anonymity) happens>
I feel:<express you feelings using "I" statements>
Because:<explain why you think it happens, perhaps use type theory since this an MBTI forum>

Corny, I know. But I would appreciate if people humored me.

This is really good! It's not corny; it's a legitimate way for people to air their grievances without having to be put on the defensive. Excellent idea.

[ptgatsby]

Originally Posted by athenian200

But the type an individual tests as influences their behavior,

If this were true, why not use a robust behavioural model, rather than a cognitive one?

The problem is that we go from (behaviour) -> (cognitive process) -> (behaviour). The problem is that it isn't ->, it's ~. We are purely guessing on the cognitive functions, then again guessing when we go from cognitive functions to behaviour. It is extremely fuzzy and the way people use it, in that regard, can be very off.

[ptgatsby]

When: Ss are not atheletes. We are not mechanics. We are not insipid. We aren't conflict driven. We do analyze. We can think. We can see the big picture. We can understand you.

I feel: Not much, except sadness.

Because: Closing the mind is dangerous. Assumptions are dangerous. You hurt yourself more than others, but it is a net-negative scenario.


When: I take my time to pull up a whole lot of research, data and so forth contradicting your theory... and the response is a nice version of "you can't understand because you are <x>".

I feel: Well, you say you want to learn and grow, but if you are going to waste my time with closed minded certitude (thank you econ!), I'd rather you say that you won't consider anything that condicts your views.

Because: It wastes my damn time.


When: Sona posts

I feel: Much irritation

Because: I am doing my bit to rebalance the S:N divide, and dammit, you manage to be the most self contradicting illogical person I have ever met... and even though I'm sure you are trolling, in persona or not, it has negative consequences. (See? Big picture... wheee).


Ohhh, this is good.

[htb]

Originally Posted by ygolo

I am talking about the rejection of Theory, elegance in design, or analysis in principle. Sayings like "theory is useless", or accusations of being "self-absorbed" for caring about "elegance", or the knee-jerk association of "cold" and "logical". Would this change your opinion?

Partly, if only because it changes the subject. I see theory as subordinate to phenomena from which it is derived, and from experience am wary of design in which theory supplants utility -- too often the impossible or impractical is carried to development, with destructive results. And, as I noted elsewhere, it's sporting to knock INTPs out of their own heads now and then.

[ygolo]

Originally Posted by htb

Partly, if only because it changes the subject. I see theory as subordinate to phenomena from which it is derived, and from experience am wary of design in which theory supplants utility -- too often the impossible or impractical is carried to development, with destructive results. And, as I noted elsewhere, it's sporting to knock INTPs out of their own heads now and then.

I was just clarifying the original intended subject, in effect, changing it back.

I would consider your "sport" as rather insensitive. Why not clarify the particular points of weakness in a particular theory, instead of deriding theory in general (theory supplanting utility as notion is one I don't understand. Theory is created FOR utility)?

[htb]

Originally Posted by ygolo

I was just clarifying the original intended subject, in effect, changing it back.

Oh, understood.

I would consider your "sport" as rather insensitive. Why not clarify the particular points of weakness in a particular theory, instead of deriding theory in general (theory supplanting utility as notion is one I don't understand. Theory is created FOR utility)?

It may be intrusive but it could spare an INTP or another detached type from the excesses of abstraction. As for the dichotomy, I mean the feasible against the doctrinaire.

[ygolo]

Originally Posted by htb

It may be intrusive but it could spare an INTP or another detached type from the excesses of abstraction. As for the dichotomy, I mean the feasible against the doctrinaire.

These are the very notions I am trying to understand.

There are improper abstractions, abstractions taken too far in particular contexts, etc. But "excesses of abstraction"? That to me is an improper abstraction of abstractions.

My point is everyone works with abstractions, whether they are aware of them or not. The human mind, no matter how "S" its owner's external perceptive function is, cannot process all the information that is delivered to it through the senses. Abstraction/filtering is a necessity of the human condition (if you are claiming to be exempt form this somehow, I think you are fairly "detached" yourself).

When I say Theory is constructed for use, I am trying to disabuse people of the incorrect theory (or at least what I believe to be incorrect), that theory and practice are at odds.

Theory is unavoidable, we all have them, whether or not we are aware of it or care to admit it. I think the issue to be discussed is the appropriateness and coherence of particular theories.

[Santtu]

Originally Posted by ptgatsby

When: Ss are not atheletes. We are not mechanics. We are not insipid. We aren't conflict driven. We do analyze. We can think. We can see the big picture. We can understand you.

I feel: Not much, except sadness.

Because: Closing the mind is dangerous. Assumptions are dangerous. You hurt yourself more than others, but it is a net-negative scenario.


When: I take my time to pull up a whole lot of research, data and so forth contradicting your theory... and the response is a nice version of "you can't understand because you are <x>".

I feel: Well, you say you want to learn and grow, but if you are going to waste my time with closed minded certitude (thank you econ!), I'd rather you say that you won't consider anything that condicts your views.

Because: It wastes my damn time.

My apologies for what has been inadequate appreciation of your contributions to the discussions. I have indeed unfairly discriminated people based on their assumed functions. I have not adequately considered each individual, but I have been combative in order to "get even" with a group of people.

I have especially liked your statistical analysis of various psychometric measures, among others. I had, until now, neglected to notice it. I had felt S as glamorizing for their supposed use of facts and yet, as I felt, evasive and defensive to what they accept as a fact.

I would not have guessed that your feelings of being ununderstood were so much like mine in such a similar manner. Why the non-understanding, then? Perhaps the philosophies adopted by different parties support for proving different classes of problems, with some classes of problems being decidable only with one philosophy.

THis can perhaps be seen less of a personality issue (and less offending) when looking at the different philosophies. There exists, for example, unconstructive and constructive proofs. (this is not a value judgement, but a name given to proofs according to whether they prove an object's existance or also provide some attribute of it's value). If one were to assert the existience of an unconstructable result, one would not help to prove the case for person demanding a real solution with an actual value. If the person's preferences would make them favour either of the two philosophies more than the other, the mutual understanding can only be reached in a subset of all the problem classes.

What I say, is that it would help us to get along if we were to recognize that different acceptable philosophies construct different sets of acceptable hypothesis and conclusions, and different sets of acceptable world views and personal standards. These world views have their own truths, proven things and legitimate concerns and values related to their respective philosophies, and they are for much the same, but they necessarilty have their un-understandible and perhaps also unexplainable parts for supporters of other philosophies. It may even be possible that some true statements are entirely untransferrable to other persons, yet important.

Listening to what may seem unprovable and unbelievable is thus an exercise in giving the other person a benefit of doubt. As giving - or not giving - the benefit of doubt relies on social evaluation of the situation and the benefits expected from adopting a view, as well as the perceived risks, we step out of the world of mathematics and facts to the world of interpersonal relations and other inexact disciplines.

Fortunately we have all the possibilities to master those interpersonal issues too, which opens up the chance of enriching our world views.