Hap's Theory of Dynamic Type

[redacted]

^I don't get it. Why not define the system as perfectly as possible? That's all I'm trying to do, I'm saying absolutely nothing about real world application.

 

[entropie]

well that was cool !!!

 

[entropie]

I am the one with the biggest ass in the system then

 

[entropie]

Want a ass that's so huuuuuuuuuuuge that I can deflect the sunlight to the whole planet

 

[mlittrell]

the second i read:

Also, the 'order' of functions is fluid, and depends on the person. The shorthand for the functions to work with are in the MBTI type codes that you already have.

i stopped reading lol

look i dont wanna kill all the fun but no new systems can really be created with MBTI. its a near flawless system. the functions are ok. the temperaments are great. the individual types are good (depending where you read the profiles) the only thing that can be done with it is use with research and linking the brain (personality) to the body better. and just understanding the brain in general. this is all called neuro-cognitive psychology and it is awsome lol.

EDIT:
now that i went on a rant i ask a question: what is the real world application of this? does it bring anything "new" to the current MBTI system or is it just a different way of looking at it? and i apologize for the rant.

 

[entropie]

It's those little things that hurt within a perfect system, like lol I did not read further

 

[Haphazard]

EDIT:
now that i went on a rant i ask a question: what is the real world application of this? does it bring anything "new" to the current MBTI system or is it just a different way of looking at it? and i apologize for the rant.

The idea is that just having the profiles is not good enough because people don't really 'fit' them. The idea is that yes, there are variations on type, and an attempt to explain some of them as a part of certain patterns. This is an educated guess as to what the patterns might be.

 

[entropie]

The idea is that just having the profiles is not good enough because people don't really 'fit' them. The idea is that yes, there are variations on type, and an attempt to explain some of them as a part of certain patterns. This is an educated guess as to what the patterns might be.

The question remains, do you think it is possible at all ?!

 

[nightning]

The question remains, do you think it is possible at all ?!

Why is it not possible? It's a different way of visualizing personality that emphasize personality is non-discrete. True, it's more difficult a system to learn. But you also get more out of it. Start by understanding singular cognitive functions, then explore how they interact... in complimentary pairs (eg Pi + Je) then in contrast (eg Te vs Fe). Then you study a person's relative use of different functions and how function interactions influence their thoughts and behavior.

Perfectly doable. It just depends on how much time and patience you have for learning something complex.

 

[entropie]

Is it possible at all to make a masterplan of every personality

 

[mlittrell]

singular cognitive functions don't accomplish too much though so whats the point? you need to look at functions in relation to the other functions (orientation) to see the true significance of function theory. the two problems i have with this system are as follows 1) its not easy to learn (not too hard though) and the actual real world application is slim, the profiles are as good as they can get imo without being stereotypical, and, personally, thats good enough for me, and 2) it ignores function orientation which is an extremely important part of function theory, really the whole part. an individual function doesn't tell you much but 4 functions in their predefined order tells you tons.

i am stil interested in the idea, and i did read through it a bit more, so if you wanna sell me the idea then go for it.

 

[redacted]

"it ignores function orientation which is an extremely important part of function theory"

Huh?

 

[nightning]

Is it possible at all to make a masterplan of every personality

It is possible... but it'll take far too long. It's best to understand the principle of deriving personality of an individual and do it case by case.

 

[entropie]

It is possible... but it'll take far too long. It's best to understand the principle of deriving personality of an individual and do it case by case.

And there our opinions differ from each other. I think you do not account randomnity into your system and that is something that is a mighty weapon.

For example: what do we do with people who are insane in the membrane ? Say we cant sort them into the system, because we didnt know how they were, when they were sane. Do we count them as mavericks ?

The beautiful and most important thing in human life is to value life. If you start calculating it into a system, you are going to miss cruxial points. Or you are not going to miss crucial points, it depends on the variety of your perceptive-ableness.

 

[nightning]

And there our opinions differ from each other. I think you do not account randomnity into your system and that is something that is a mighty weapon.

For example: what do we do with people who are insane in the membrane ? Say we cant sort them into the system, because we didnt know how they were, when they were sane. Do we count them as mavericks ?

What do you mean by "insane in the membrane"? The way I "sort" them under the new continuous spectrum is no different than the 16 types system in place right now. What I mean is using cognitive function testing to order their preferred function use. Then use the relative strengths of the function to come up with a personality profile.

If these people are as you say "insane" then they wouldn't be typeable by the current MBTI system anyhow. I don't see why this new "dynamic type" is in any way inferior to the existing one.

The beautiful and most important thing in human life is to value life. If you start calculating it into a system, you are going to miss cruxial points. Or you are not going to miss crucial points, it depends on the variety of your perceptive-ableness.

I don't understand what you're trying to get at here. It is precisely because I value people as individuals that I think they shouldn't be boxed into one of 16 types. What are the crucial points that I'm missing? Please enlighten.

 

[entropie]

I dont know, I dont think that you are missing anything at all. I am convinced that your approach is right.

It's just I read your things and it doesnt feel right. Guess that's a thing I have to figure out for myself.

But you are not doing anything wrong in no way. Dynamic type can be true. I wont rule that out.

And excuse me for avoiding you right now, but I do not have the strength at the moment.

 

[nightning]

I dont know, I dont think that you are missing anything at all. I am convinced that your approach is right.

It's just I read your things and it doesnt feel right. Guess that's a thing I have to figure out for myself.

But you are not doing anything wrong in no way. Dynamic type can be true. I wont rule that out.

And excuse me for not talking to you, but I do not have the strength at the moment.

Oh no worries! It's getting late on my end as well.

Do give it some thought if you can and maybe the reason why it feels wrong will come to you. God knows how many holes I have in my thinking.

 

[entropie]

Thanks . I guess my problem is, I lack understanding of any sort of pyschology things in the first place. I have my way to see things and MBTI is a tool to help me describe my view. It sometimes works. But if you start changing MBTI now for the better, I loose the first tool I EVER found to describe my things.

Guess the best thing is to finally develop a system of my own that can be told to other people. It's just, that's boring, I am an engineer not a psychatrist.

So if you read my posts, criticize them, smile on them but NEVER take em seriously . I just lack the expertise to be taken seriously

 

[nightning]

Thanks . I guess my problem is, I lack understanding of any sort of pyschology things in the first place. I have my way to see things and MBTI is a tool to help me describe my view. It sometimes works. But if you start changing MBTI now for the better, I loose the first tool I EVER found to describe my things.

Guess the best thing is to finally develop a system of my own that can be told to other people. It's just, that's boring, I am an engineer not a psychatrist.

So if you read my posts, criticize them, smile on them but NEVER take em seriously . I just lack the expertise to be taken seriously

I disagree with the bolded statements.

You've clearly gave some thought to the ideas. Why shouldn't they be taken seriously? Expertise isn't everything. You as an engineer probably approach a problem differently than I do. A fresh prospective might just be what's required for a breakthrough.

Agree with you there that a system is only good as long as it's useful. If MBTI is sufficient for your purpose, there's no need to change. I poke around with it more only because I find the mucking around enjoyable.

 

[entropie]

hehe

well thanks, a little appreciation now and then, keeps the wheels oiled. Guess that's something everybody agrees on.

Just do not forget Jack D. Flak Artillery Jr.Sgt. Paula.

Cant imagine he does dismiss direct appreciation. But he does dismiss indirect appreciation, though he is still in need of it. Dont want to get deeper now into Introverted Thinking, otherwise I have to duct tape myself.