User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 50

  1. #21
    Senior Member ThatsWhatHeSaid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    7,233

    Default

    I read your post and am pretty well-versed in how you view the relationship between unconscious processes and personality. Lets make sure we're on the same page, though.

    We're looking for a system that helps us understand how people work and to make sense of their behavior. If we assume that behavior is based on core patterns (or "predilections"), unconscious or not, then understanding this core will give us really good insight into behavior or "issue" that emanate from this core, in theory. So the question turns to what the composition of this core really is. You seem to put a premium on typology, but I don't, because I find it to be shallow. I'll try and explain why, though I don't know if I can (or care to) convince you.

    Trying to understand people is really asking "why?" Why did he do that? Why does he need that? What is he trying to accomplish? How does it all fit together? I think we can agree as far as that goes.

    Typology as a system to excavate and delineate this core too narrow. There are themes in people's behaviors that having nothing to do with the way you take in information or make decisions. These themes relate to their needs, fears, and defense mechanisms. Attachment theory is a great example of how the need for security can influence one's behavior and psychology in relationships. Buddhist psychology is another useful system. When you think, predominantly, in terms of Jungian typology, you end up missing a lot of information.

    Typology enthusiasts like youself, I suspect, have this notion that the basic units of personality -- the core -- is comprised of the cognitive processes. That makes it very difficult for them to see anything but cognitive processes, and they get caught up and stuck in thinking that people's cores are only comprised of some combination of these 4 functions. I think it's a huge mistake. It's just one way of categorizing personality, and, as I've tried to explain, not even a great one.

    Edahn

    P.S. the stuff you said about psychology not being concerned with intrinsic cognitive faculties is BS:

    In short, typology can evince our instincs towards particular ways of thinking. It is an important subject because unlike psychology, which is primarily concerned with empirical investigation of extrinsic circumstances surrounding the individual, it is concerned with the intrinsic cognitive faculties of the individual which are not as easily influenced by extrinsic circumstances.
    Personality psychology, abnormal psychology, psychopharmacology, and clinical psychology (psychoanalysis) are 4 areas in psychology where "internal predilections" play a key role. Embedded in all of them is an assumption that there are stable, internal habits/factors that can be measured, labeled, and treated, respectively.



    Quote Originally Posted by THEANO View Post
    oh, boy, reading the exchange between the last two posters is like watching someone speaking in French to someone who is unilingual in Cantonese
    Entertaining (to a point) for the rest of us, but clearly must be frustrating for the Frenchman
    Are you calling me French?
    Last edited by ThatsWhatHeSaid; 11-24-2008 at 11:22 AM.

  2. #22
    Senior Member THEANO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Posts
    343

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatsWhatHeSaid View Post




    Are you calling me French?
    oh, sorry! Did you want to be the Japanese one?
    All I know for sure is that I come from a long line of dead people

  3. #23
    Senior Member ThatsWhatHeSaid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    7,233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by THEANO View Post
    oh, sorry! Did you want to be the Japanese one?
    évidemment pas vous l'américain stupide!

  4. #24
    Senior Member THEANO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Posts
    343

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatsWhatHeSaid View Post
    évidemment pas vous l'américain stupide!
    Comme je ne suis pas un Américain, je ne prendrai pas personnellement
    All I know for sure is that I come from a long line of dead people

  5. #25
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    But, there seems to be an inherent assumption with typology that although we cannot assign an observed behaviour to make a type falsifiable (e.g., of your Mama T & Addy H), it is, however, interestingly easy enough to use behaviour to verify a type. Why this skewness?

    "I am right, and this example proves it so."
    "I am still right regardless of this specific example proving it otherwise"

    ....ehhhhhhhhhhh?

    It's like the impenetrable wall of the Virgin Mary.

    I do not understand your question.

    Obviously an inquiry into philosophy of mind starts with something that could be observed. The observations are made of patterns of thought, or of the mind in a general sense, and not of concrete behavior.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  6. #26
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatsWhatHeSaid View Post
    I read your post and am pretty well-versed in how you view the relationship between unconscious processes and personality. Lets make sure we're on the same page, though.

    We're looking for a system that helps us understand how people work and to make sense of their behavior. If we assume that behavior is based on core patterns (or "predilections"), unconscious or not, then understanding this core will give us really good insight into behavior or "issue" that emanate from this core, in theory. So the question turns to what the composition of this core really is. You seem to put a premium on typology, but I don't, because I find it to be shallow. I'll try and explain why, though I don't know if I can (or care to) convince you.

    Trying to understand people is really asking "why?" Why did he do that? Why does he need that? What is he trying to accomplish? How does it all fit together? I think we can agree as far as that goes.

    Typology as a system to excavate and delineate this core too narrow. There are themes in people's behaviors that having nothing to do with the way you take in information or make decisions. These themes relate to their needs, fears, and defense mechanisms. Attachment theory is a great example of how the need for security can influence one's behavior and psychology in relationships. Buddhist psychology is another useful system. When you think, predominantly, in terms of Jungian typology, you end up missing a lot of information.

    Typology enthusiasts like youself, I suspect, have this notion that the basic units of personality -- the core -- is comprised of the cognitive processes. That makes it very difficult for them to see anything but cognitive processes, and they get caught up and stuck in thinking that people's cores are only comprised of some combination of these 4 functions. I think it's a huge mistake. It's just one way of categorizing personality, and, as I've tried to explain, not even a great one.

    Edahn

    P.S. the stuff you said about psychology not being concerned with intrinsic cognitive faculties is BS:



    Personality psychology, abnormal psychology, psychopharmacology, and clinical psychology (psychoanalysis) are 4 areas in psychology where "internal predilections" play a key role. Embedded in all of them is an assumption that there are stable, internal habits/factors that can be measured, labeled, and treated, respectively.





    Are you calling me French?
    Edahn, you're very confused.

    You do not seem to understand what psychology is in the academical sense. Of course there are branches of psychology that are concerned with questions of philosophy of mind, but that is not the main focus of academic psychology. In the most technical sense, those psychologists are doing philosophy of mind and not academic psychology.

    Secondly,

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatsWhatHeSaid View Post
    There are themes in people's behaviors that having nothing to do with the way you take in information or make decisions.":
    I would be very impressed if you could name one psychological activity that we perform that does not involve unconscious processing or conscious valuation.

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatsWhatHeSaid View Post
    .These themes relate to their needs, fears, and defense mechanisms. Attachment theory is a great example of how the need for security can influence one's behavior and psychology in relationships. Buddhist psychology is another useful system. When you think, predominantly, in terms of Jungian typology, you end up missing a lot of information.":
    This makes no sense at all!

    When we fear something, is it the case that this emotive process has nothing to do with how we feel (conscious valuation ) and nothign to do with how we experience the environment unconsciously?

    All of our emotive processes are either decision-making or unconscious collection of information. Everything that is in our psyche somehow derived from the external environment and we have reflected upon it with our conscious valuation.

    Lets assume for your conclusion to be true. Some psychological activities are not properties of unconscious perception or are not properties of conscious valuation.

    Could any entity of our psychology not be a property of unconscious perception? If we did not perceive it, or in any way interact with it, it cannot be in our mind at all. Thus, the answer is no.

    Can any property of our psychology not be a faculty of conscious valuation? Certainly, as there are many instincts and predilections within our mind that we are not consciously aware of. Such as for instance, our tendency to associate bread with the idea of China which may be a result of our mother baking bread and telling us about China at the same time when we were 5.

    Yet the province of conscious valuation is rich, when we experience any of the passions you describe, or the attachment theory you cited may describe we are making emotive valuations. When we try to get an idea of what those passions are, or trying to understand the structure of any particular entity, we are using Thinking. To be more precise, conscious 'judgment' happens on an unsconsious level as we cannot help but have thoughts like 'what is this' or associate a certain feeling with a particular object.

    Thus, both judgment and perception are unconscious, judgment is best defined as an unconscious process of translation of unconscious perceptions into notions that could be regarded from the standpoint of conscious scrutiny. Making decisions is a sophistication of judgment, but not the typological essence of judgment itself.

    In summary, we either unconsciously make impressions of our environment (perception) and inevitably transduce those impressions into something intelligible. Conscious value judgment and logical reasoning are the sophistication of the latter process.

    All of our psychological activities inevitably involve making unconscious impressions of our environment and transducing it into what is intelligible.




    Quote Originally Posted by ThatsWhatHeSaid View Post
    That makes it very difficult for them to see anything but cognitive processes, and they get caught up and stuck in thinking that people's cores are only comprised of some combination of these 4 functions. I think it's a huge mistake. It's just one way of categorizing personality, and, as I've tried to explain, not even a great one.
    .
    Of course it is a threat to get caught up in those 'simplistic 4 functions'. That is, if you have a very crude and simplistic idea of what those functions are, such as the idea that you have. They are incredibly complex in themselves and in a very general sense explain all activities of the human mind. In order to get a more specific idea of how those functions work, inquiry into philosophy of mind is necessary.

    The problem appears to be that you fundamentally misunderstand what those typological functions are. The definition of Judgment as simply 'decision making' is false. This is what MBTI popularizers propounded as a way to provide a simple enough notion of what judgment is to the masses. That, needless to say is an oversimplification. Perception is not collection of information either in the most conventional sense of the word. It is mere unconscious inception of the external world. Judgment is not either logic (if A then B) or a value judgment (bread is good) judgment is a process of translation of unconscious perceptions into a conscious perspective.


    Quote Originally Posted by dissonance View Post


    @Blue -- why is intuition considered further from "the will" than sensing?
    Sensing is very visceral, very closely attuned with instincts, yet Intuition is highly cerebral because it detaches from one concrete, sensorial perception in order to attain the liberty necessary to conjure abstract images.

    In short, because Sensing is attuned with the instinct, yet Intuition detaches from the instinct.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  7. #27
    Senior Member ThatsWhatHeSaid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    7,233

    Default

    Something tells me I'm replying against my better judgment. Oh well. Here goes.

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    Edahn, you're very confused.
    BlueWing, you're very condescending.

    You do not seem to understand what psychology is in the academical sense. Of course there are branches of psychology that are concerned with questions of philosophy of mind, but that is not the main focus of academic psychology. In the most technical sense, those psychologists are doing philosophy of mind and not academic psychology.
    Is that supposed to be convincing? It sounds to me like you're just repeating what you said above, but this time admitting that psychologists practice what I say they did, but then saying that they're not real psychologists. Thank you for a great illustration of the No True Scotsman fallacy, BW.

    Secondly, I would be very impressed if you could name one psychological activity that we perform that does not involve unconscious processing or conscious valuation.
    No no no. Just because something is involved doesn't mean it's at the bottom of what's happening. For example, molecules are involved in chemical reactions, but if we really want to dig down, we would want to look at subatomic physics, maybe even quantum physics. Even worse, you could use your logic to say that in studying chemistry, we should study time, since time is always involved and even required for a chemical reaction to transpire.

    This seems to be the argument you make in the next chapter of your post: that since something is involved, it must be that it's the most fundamental part. (Maybe I'm wrong and you didn't argue that.) Just classifying what your mind is doing is not enough, especially when your classification system is bulky and clumsy like typology.

    This makes no sense at all!

    When we fear something, is it the case that this emotive process has nothing to do with how we feel (conscious valuation ) and nothign to do with how we experience the environment unconsciously?

    All of our emotive processes are either decision-making or unconscious collection of information. Everything that is in our psyche somehow derived from the external environment and we have reflected upon it with our conscious valuation.

    Lets assume for your conclusion to be true. Some psychological activities are not properties of unconscious perception or are not properties of conscious valuation.

    Could any entity of our psychology not be a property of unconscious perception? If we did not perceive it, or in any way interact with it, it cannot be in our mind at all. Thus, the answer is no.

    Can any property of our psychology not be a faculty of conscious valuation? Certainly, as there are many instincts and predilections within our mind that we are not consciously aware of. Such as for instance, our tendency to associate bread with the idea of China which may be a result of our mother baking bread and telling us about China at the same time when we were 5.

    Yet the province of conscious valuation is rich, when we experience any of the passions you describe, or the attachment theory you cited may describe we are making emotive valuations. When we try to get an idea of what those passions are, or trying to understand the structure of any particular entity, we are using Thinking. To be more precise, conscious 'judgment' happens on an unsconsious level as we cannot help but have thoughts like 'what is this' or associate a certain feeling with a particular object.

    Thus, both judgment and perception are unconscious, judgment is best defined as an unconscious process of translation of unconscious perceptions into notions that could be regarded from the standpoint of conscious scrutiny. Making decisions is a sophistication of judgment, but not the typological essence of judgment itself.

    In summary, we either unconsciously make impressions of our environment (perception) and inevitably transduce those impressions into something intelligible. Conscious value judgment and logical reasoning are the sophistication of the latter process.

    All of our psychological activities inevitably involve making unconscious impressions of our environment and transducing it into what is intelligible.
    Sorry. I tried reading this about 3 times, but I just don't have it in me to try and decode whatever the fuck it is you're trying to say. Lose the jargon or lose the audience, I guess.

  8. #28
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatsWhatHeSaid View Post
    Is that supposed to be convincing? It sounds to me like you're just repeating what you said above, but this time admitting that psychologists practice what I say they did, but then saying that they're not real psychologists. Thank you for a great illustration of the No True Scotsman fallacy, BW. .
    Where is the fallacy here? One either is a psychologist or is not depending one the definition of himself and the definition of a psychologist. I don't see the error in judgment at all.

    The bottom line is, psychology, as an academic discipline relies very heavily on the empirical method of investigation. For this reason, philosophy of mind is not within the scope of such a subject.

    Basically, your position is as follows;

    -I do not know what exactly psychology is, nor do I care to find out.
    -I think it is unfair to say that some things are psychology others are not.
    -I do not know what exactly the functions of typology are, nor do I care to find out.
    -I just think that they have something to do with making decisions and collecting information.
    -I do not know what exactly it means to make decisions or collect information, and I do not much care.
    -I just know that all functions of typology are about making decisions and collecting information, and I refuse to change my mind! But I dont even know what exactly that is!







    Quote Originally Posted by ThatsWhatHeSaid View Post
    Sorry. I tried reading this about 3 times, but I just don't have it in me to try and decode whatever the fuck it is you're trying to say. Lose the jargon or lose the audience, I guess.
    Don't worry, you wouldn't understand it anyways.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  9. #29
    Senior Member ThatsWhatHeSaid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    7,233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    Don't worry, you wouldn't understand it anyways.
    Maybe you're right, but it's definitely not something I'm worried about.

  10. #30
    Senior Member ThatsWhatHeSaid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    7,233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    Where is the fallacy here? One either is a psychologist or is not depending one the definition of himself and the definition of a psychologist. I don't see the error in judgment at all.
    The error is in the fact that psychology doesn't have a definition that's as rigid as you pretend it is. The field of psychology is wider than you think and embraces some of the characteristics you think are exclusive to philosophy. When I showed you a counter example of PSYCHOLOGISTS, who study western psychology, you dismissed it as saying that those people were practicing philosophy of mind and not psychology.

    The bottom line is, psychology, as an academic discipline relies very heavily on the empirical method of investigation. For this reason, philosophy of mind is not within the scope of such a subject.
    Psychoanalysis is a great example of an area of psychology that cannot rely on empiricism. So...you know...wtf.

    Basically, your position is as follows;
    My position is that you don't know what you're talking about, and that you're so busy crafting boundaries between disciplines that you forget that the boundaries are your own, and not part of the discipline itself.

Similar Threads

  1. Evolution of typology
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 150
    Last Post: 01-31-2013, 05:33 AM
  2. Principles of Typology
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 08-20-2012, 08:20 PM
  3. A Survey of Typology Central
    By Caligula in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 03-29-2010, 11:00 PM
  4. Costrin and BlackCat's super duper typology overview (of doom)
    By BlackCat in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 75
    Last Post: 05-11-2009, 10:39 PM
  5. Problems of Typology
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 04-26-2008, 11:12 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO