Hap's Theory of Dynamic Type

[nightning]

Yes, I'd imagine he has a word or a few hundred to say on the topic if you get him started. Not sure if appreciation, direct or other wise carries much weight with him. I guess we can but try.

Anyways, it's getting late. I best to off. Thank you for your posts.

 

[entropie]

you too, gn8

 

[Jack Flak]

Yes, I'd imagine he has a word or a few hundred to say on the topic if you get him started. Not sure if appreciation, direct or other wise carries much weight with him. I guess we can but try.

Anyways, it's getting late. I best to off. Thank you for your posts.

I could say "Read my posts again."

Or I could re-emphasize that the system has no use other than self-contemplation, because it's completely impossible to type anyone with it, not to mention pointless, because there are too many types to maintain an effective, useful system of generalization.

But I would probably just use a run-on sentence and sound like a smartass if I did that.

 

[redacted]

I could say "Read my posts again."

Or I could re-emphasize that the system has no use other than self-contemplation, because it's completely impossible to type anyone with it, not to mention pointless, because there are too many types to maintain an effective, useful system of generalization.

But I would probably just use a run-on sentence and sound like a smartass if I did that.

How is it impossible to type anyone with it? You just type them the exact same way...try to figure out their distribution of functions and find the best fit type.

 

[mlittrell]

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

Huh?

the predefined orientation of one function to another. for example, and INTP has these 4 predefined functions: Ti, Ne, Si, Fe. the functions can bend but never break this orientation.

 

[nightning]

I could say "Read my posts again."

Or I could re-emphasize that the system has no use other than self-contemplation, because it's completely impossible to type anyone with it, not to mention pointless, because there are too many types to maintain an effective, useful system of generalization.

But I would probably just use a run-on sentence and sound like a smartass if I did that.

Why are you insisting to call a cat, a cat and a dog, a dog again?

My point is not to type anyone. My point is to understand their personality related tendencies. That means no types, no boxes. I don't want to generalize and describe the "average" person. That's useless. I want to understand individuals. Do I make myself clear?

 

[mlittrell]

Why are you insisting to call a cat, a cat and a dog, a dog again?

My point is not to type anyone. My point is to understand their personality related tendencies. That means no types, no boxes. I don't want to generalize and describe the "average" person. That's useless. I want to understand individuals. Do I make myself clear?

that last statement...i couldn't agree more good man. types are a foundation for understanding people. no more. no less. a persons overall consciousness cannot be contained in four/eight letters. if you look at my signature you get but a brief understanding of who i truly am, but it is nothing more than a snapshot.

 

[Frank]

the predefined orientation of one function to another. for example, and INTP has these 4 predefined functions: Ti, Ne, Si, Fe. the functions can bend but never break this orientation.

The bolded portion is the biggest flaw in the system in my opinion and in the opinion of many of the counselors and psychologists that I have spoken to regarding this. Many have stated that decades of clinical work has led them to believe that yes functions exist, but order and development is quite circumstantial.

 

[Jack Flak]

My point is not to type anyone. My point is to understand their personality related tendencies. That means no types, no boxes. I don't want to generalize and describe the "average" person. That's useless. I want to understand individuals. Do I make myself clear?

You don't need a type system to psychoanalyze a select few individuals.

dissonance: I suppose I understand your motivation, but it's my personally confident assessment that the execution will go nowhere. The system's too complex, and this leads to two things: 1., Conclusions will vary from day to day. It's not static. 2., It's extremely difficult to pin down the variables even for one instant of a person's life.

 

[nightning]

You don't need a type system to psychoanalyze a select few individuals.

dissonance: I suppose I understand your motivation, but it's my personally confident assessment that the execution will go nowhere. The system's too complex, and this leads to two things: 1., Conclusions will vary from day to day. It's not static. 2., It's extremely difficult to pin down the variables even for one instant of a person's life.

You are correct. I don't need a type system. The Big 5 is suffice is I only wish to describe individuals. I also wish to use the system to make predictions. Currently the Big 5 is not helpful in predicting behavior. MBTI however has been applied. So it seems to be a better starting point. That's all.

Point about the system being consistent. I'm a practical person. If it's useful, I keep it, regardless of how consistent the exact number might be. I don't care about the numbers precisely, I care about the overall pattern. Whether the patterns can be used to predict behavior. Any other objections?

 

[redacted]

the predefined orientation of one function to another. for example, and INTP has these 4 predefined functions: Ti, Ne, Si, Fe. the functions can bend but never break this orientation.

Ah yes. I brought this up earlier in the thread...

If you use spectrums for each function, you also need to mention the correlation between introversion of thinking and extroversion of feeling (and vice versa, and for S/N).

 

[mlittrell]

The bolded portion is the biggest flaw in the system in my opinion and in the opinion of many of the counselors and psychologists that I have spoken to regarding this. Many have stated that decades of clinical work has led them to believe that yes functions exist, but order and development is quite circumstantial.

the current temperament system is derived from functions and their orientation. without the orientation of the functions, the current temperament system wouldn't work, and on a personal note i find that the temperaments are quite a bit more effective than the functions. also i believe that the functions are all used but you will see one more than another in certain circumstances. all this meaning you need to use your functions but some may be seen as more dominant as another even though are using multiple functions at once. this is the bend im talking about. also, in a clinical setting, a psychologist is going to use MBTI as a tool but they aren't sitting there thinking "hmm that must be his/her Fi flaring up" they are intuitive to a point were they dont need to consciously use MBTI.

Ah yes. I brought this up earlier in the thread...

If you use spectrums for each function, you also need to mention the correlation between introversion of thinking and extroversion of feeling (and vice versa, and for S/N).

precisely

 

[Frank]

the current temperament system is derived from functions and their orientation. without the orientation of the functions, the current temperament system wouldn't work, and on a personal note i find that the temperaments are quite a bit more effective than the functions. also i believe that the functions are all used but you will see one more than another in certain circumstances. all this meaning you need to use your functions but some may be seen as more dominant as another even though are using multiple functions at once. this is the bend im talking about. also, in a clinical setting, a psychologist is going to use MBTI as a tool but they aren't sitting there thinking "hmm that must be his/her Fi flaring up" they are intuitive to a point were they dont need to consciously use MBTI.

Just because they don't "need" to use the theory does not mean they cannot use their work to deepen their understanding of it. And yes, after 20 or so years of this work they are intuitive enough to make these connections without too much conscious thought other than instant identification. It is precisely because of this fact that I am more willing to trust their intuitions.

 

[Jack Flak]

also, in a clinical setting, a psychologist is going to use MBTI as a tool but they aren't sitting there thinking "hmm that must be his/her Fi flaring up" they are intuitive to a point were they dont need to consciously use MBTI.

This is probably the best point I've never personally thought of.

To rephrase: If you're brilliant and intuitive enough to figure out a type system including more than sixteen types, then the last thing you would ever need is a "type system."

 

[mlittrell]

there is no system that can fully describe the human cognition and for ill i care, there will never be. MBTI is as close as you get.

and your rephrase is excellent sir

 

[nightning]

This is probably the best point I've never personally thought of.

To rephrase: If you're brilliant and intuitive enough to figure out a type system including more than sixteen types, then the last thing you would ever need is a "type system."

Yes exactly! Wouldn't that be great?