• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

where does Types come from? is it really a 'mystery' or 'God-given' ?

niki

New member
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
210
MBTI Type
INFP
what do you guys think?
I think this also ties really close with the "talents" stuff.
many people would easily believe that "talent" does exist, and it's indeed a mystery, of how it came from.

but after i've known the concept of MBTI and Personality Types, now i somehow believe that "talent" is actually very related with Personality Type too, and hence, it's more of reactions from genetics.
or is it still a 'mystery' ? ie: the existence of Personality Types, along with natural talents or skills ?
or even to push further, do you think it's really God-given ?
 

entropie

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
16,767
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
783
I dont get your point. You basically have the human brain with a lot of neurons that form connections with each other through experience and through your course of life.

Given that society has an overall general idea of itself, over the aeons of time; similiar personality types are likely to emerge. If humankind would be all green for example and would walk on 4 legs, its most probable the type system would be different, cause there would be different dichotomies.

Concerning talent, like I said, the brain forms connections with the neurons. Some brains do that better others dont do it at all.

I have a hard time to combine religion with type theory :)
 
G

garbage

Guest
I think the OP's question is more along the lines of the nature versus nurture debate with respect to types, rather than being one of religion.

I think types are "God-given" (designated at birth) and that one's type's natural strengths are likely in line with their talents.
 

nanook

a scream in a vortex
Joined
Jul 22, 2007
Messages
1,361
obviously there is a mastermind, but its not giving us finished things in the relative world, but building them in time. it does not have a plan for the future but a sense of where its about to go, as its basically just about making the right hand know what the left hand does. this means that types are not fixed. they have been build and can be deconstructed for sake of a higher, more flexible order. for instance intuition can and will (and did) brake down into more specific separated entities, but at the same time a transcending layer will (would/did) develop, that is more sophisticated in it's ability to unite the separation of its children, so an united intuition remains as a transformed, more abstract entity that includes its childs. thus "type", if defined by separation/differentiation of dichotomies or functions, used to not-exist, was created once, and will become obsolete once, but at the same time, it will always be remembered and repeated in the development of the individual, meaning a child is born without manifested type, and will develop type, and may rise above it before death.

as long as the wold supports type, type will support the world. but the world grows, while keepings its basic structures, so the basic structures will support type and type will support the basic structures, yet the emerging higher layers of the world may not support type and type may not support them, but only on those newly emerged layers. the outer appearance of objects on basic structure layers will be ruled by higher layers, but the basic structures will remain supported, in their internal most abstract nature. just like every human has a reptilian brain stem, but does not have the external appearance of a dinosaur, when born. yet, at some point a babie's perception is not that different from a reptilian. on drugs we can still go there.

its funny to imagine that the grown up of the future (say 300 years from now) may not relate to type-theory of the 20th century at all, because he transcended it at the age of four, before he became self-aware, yet, when he drinks high doses of alcohol he suddenly regresses into his type structure and behaves all entp.
 
Last edited:

entropie

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
16,767
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
783
I still dont get the point. Could the question be substituted with: "Where do numbers come from ?" Cause to me the concept is the same.

Type is a human invention giving a description to a certain perception of humain traits known to have developed through aeons of time. Again as I said, if we were all born green, the dichotomies could be different.
 

nanook

a scream in a vortex
Joined
Jul 22, 2007
Messages
1,361
of course this question does not only concern type but pretty much every aspect of our nature. on the other hand to whole "what if everything was different" type of thinking is a human mode of imagination that does not really help with understanding why things are a certain way. at best it is itself based on a abstract understanding of why they are that way. more specifically a purely descriptive understanding of "how" the came to be. mostly its a meaningless distraction. why so distracted?

yes, as i pointed out, everything is connected in mutual influence (the world supports type, type supports the world), but that does not explain anything in time (causality, the nature of originating), it only explains why the current moment (the world in the current moment) does not just implode into nothingness/emptiness.
 
G

garbage

Guest
Let's try this again.

Typology systems and definitions of cognitive processes are a human construct intended to classify traits of human cognition, which are given to us at birth, and the innate strengths and weaknesses that said traits bestow upon us.

There.
 

nanook

a scream in a vortex
Joined
Jul 22, 2007
Messages
1,361
classify traits of human cognition, which are given to us at birth

yeah, so if the term typology refers to the traits, its still referring to something real, it may just be in-accurate like everything we think and talk about.

but there is close to zero information on how exactly type (actual human cognition) is actually given "at" birth. maybe just the "quadras" (socioncs term for a class of several types) is given "at" birth. also: what does "given" mean anyway. there is a process before birth. there is hormonal influence during pregnancy. its not just sperm. also there is a process before sperm. and there is a process of sperm hitting on eggs, as revealed by woody allen movies. so everything is given, plus the term "given" is totally meaningless. its just "pushing the question backwards until its out of subjective comprehension"
 

ThatsWhatHeSaid

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
7,263
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Bad grammar aside, your personality is a function of your genetics and upbringing. The concept of a "type" is an artificial construct that tries to summarize and categorize your most frequently observed habits.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
Personality "types" are just approximations. There's no mystery here.

It's like saying, "isn't it weird that there are 7 colors (red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet) in the color spectrum? How is it that all colors fall into these categories?". The answer to that question is that, if you want to analyze colors with a framework with 7 color terms, you can. You can zoom in (more colors) or zoom out (fewer colors) and still make generalizations. Frameworks are just levels of categorization. They don't even objectively exist.

You can analyze certain dimensions of personality with MBTI. You could zoom in and find plenty of differences between people that share a type. Or you could zoom out and find plenty of similarities among types.
 

nanook

a scream in a vortex
Joined
Jul 22, 2007
Messages
1,361
You could zoom in and find plenty of differences between people that share a type.

but an apple IS different form an orange and just because some oranges have 6 seeds and some apples have 6 seeds does not make them the same type, except the typology applied is stupid, which is what happens in the reality of human's thinking. yet, there are pure types, if we understand them or not. they can be a different or similar as they want, but oranges are never apples. just by zooming out and refusing to see a difference between apples and oranges you wont make them compatible in reality. all that relativism does not contribute to understanding nature it only insists on a specific human stupidity, as if it could not be overcome some day.

The concept of a "type" is an artificial construct that tries to summarize and categorize your most frequently observed habits.

"type" as theory is handled very differently by different typologists. thus its different/various perspectives on a real thing. the map is not the territory. let aside those typologists who understand nothing about the territory but only their arbitrary constructed map, which they copied from other maps, "improving" it for sake of symmetry or something, there should be a lot of typologists who have actual perspectives on the territory, meaning perceptions. the more different perspectives (methodologies) are applied to the territory, the better the actual territory is understood, the more accurately the territory will be represented by our map(s) - but only if those perspectives don't try to fight/dominate/overwrite each other.

has nothing to do with the topic though (yes, i don't really get the original question myself, but i don't care).

no, type does not explain prodigious talent, it only describes some modulations / form giving aspects to talent.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
but an apple IS different form an orange and just because some oranges have 6 seeds and some apples have 6 seeds does not make them the same type, except the typology applied is stupid, which is what happens in reality. yet, there are pure types, if we understand them or not. they can be a different or similar as they want, but oranges are never apples. all that relativism does not contribute to understanding nature it only insists on human stupidity.

We're not talking apples and oranges here. There are no functions that one person uses that other people don't use.

Also..."there are pure types"... what do you mean?
 

nanook

a scream in a vortex
Joined
Jul 22, 2007
Messages
1,361
We're not talking apples and oranges here. There are no functions that one person uses that other people don't use.

none of that is know, and by pure types, i mean that a type, if defined (understood) correctly can be applied to a layer of structure IN a human being, that has this typological layer at the stage where it has been observed on other humans on the same stages. its just silly to assume that type is supposed to describe and explain whole human beings. it's supposed to be an abstract map layer that captures (signifies) an structural aspect of the actual territory. if thats not possible, than it must be improved. also: if structure disassembles outer appearance of type at some point in development, than type must not be applied to individuals who have grown to that point, but it can be applied to their history. and whatever makes people individual besides type, is not relevant to type theory. i don't know, if present type theory is any good, but i am here to find out, and i insist, that type is supposed to be good, meaning it is supposed to match actual patterns of the territory (like apples or oranges), or else it is not a typology, by definition. else it is just a statistical tool, like saying there are 66 people with short hair and 34 people with long hair. this is not a typology, by definition. typology does "talk apple and orange". except we are talking about fruits that may transform into butterflies or stuff. so, typology does not say, an apple will always be an apple. but an apple who grows wings, is still somehow a (transformed) apple on the inside, even if now he should be classified together with winged oranges, because the fact that both have grown wings indicates a higher layer of structure and on that layer, both are suddenly the same type, but the same type in a totally different typology. they are winged fruits as opposed to ananas and kiwi who will grow no wings but branchias after transformation. so, you are one type of one typology, and remain that type, but if you transform, you are in addition another type of another typology. all of this is not subjective theory of zooming in and out, because nature actually does act in stages and types. types are also called holons. holons act in a self preserving manner, meaning that the will fight for their independence. a marriage of two holons does not destroy the holons, but only alters their appearance and also creates a single entirely new higher holon. every molecule is a type. every brain hemisphere is a type (holon). every organ is a type. the lung is not a part of the stomach, it is a separated on its own level, but only on a lower level it seems to be connected (ie by a sea of protein), but the lower level does not concern the lungs properties as holon. on a higher leven (thorso) lung and stomach seem to be connected as well. they are, but only on that higher level of structure. type is either a separated structural holon in our spirit (or a constellation of interactive holons, ie functions), or it is false = it is not a type, it is a theory that is wrong and deluded and should be abandoned. we don't know, we need to find out.

if you want a statistical tool about length of hairs, or amounts of aggression .. go for it, we had plenty of these in the past, we still have the DSM or five temperaments, but they don't deserve the name typology. not only do they not refer to actual types, a lot of them do not even refer to horizontal differences (differentiations of holons on a common level of structural complexity), but to vertical differences of different levels, meaning that in some falsely labeled "typologies" you could grow from one type (ie primitive) into another type (ie educated). such statistical tools of arbitrary "zooming in or out" are not typologies, neither are statistical tools that have a grasp on not arbitrary but actually separated stages of structural order.
 

Rajah

Reigning Bologna Princess
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
1,774
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7
I bought my entp at Wal-Mart. I couldn't resist the rollback prices.
 

entropie

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
16,767
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
783
Let's try this again.

Typology systems and definitions of cognitive processes are a human construct intended to classify traits of human cognition, which are given to us at birth, and the innate strengths and weaknesses that said traits bestow upon us.

There.

Ah now I get it. So the questions is are you born with certain traits or not. Yeah thats a good one, ultimateviley resulting in a 4 question long MBTI Test for newborns :D
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
none of that is know, and by pure types, i mean that a type, if defined (understood) correctly can be applied to a layer of structure IN a human being, that has this typological layer at the stage where it has been observed on other humans on the same stages. its just silly to assume that type is supposed to describe and explain whole human beings. it's supposed to be an abstract map layer that captures (signifies) an structural aspect of the actual territory. if thats not possible, than it must be improved. also: if structure disassembles outer appearance of type at some point in development, than type must not be applied to individuals who have grown to that point, but it can be applied to their history. and whatever makes people individual besides type, is not relevant to type theory. i don't know, if present type theory is any good, but i am here to find out, and i insist, that type is supposed to be good, meaning it is supposed to match actual patterns of the territory (like apples or oranges), or else it is not a typology, by definition. else it is just a statistical tool, like saying there are 66 people with short hair and 34 people with long hair. this is not a typology, by definition. typology does "talk apple and orange". except we are talking about fruits that may transform into butterflies or stuff. so, typology does not say, an apple will always be an apple. but an apple who grows wings, is still somehow a (transformed) apple on the inside, even if now he should be classified together with winged oranges, because the fact that both have grown wings indicates a higher layer of structure and on that layer, both are suddenly the same type, but the same type in a totally different typology. they are winged fruits as opposed to ananas and kiwi who will grow no wings but branchias after transformation. so, you are one type of one typology, and remain that type, but if you transform, you are in addition another type of another typology. all of this is not subjective theory of zooming in and out, because nature actually does act in stages and types. types are also called holons. holons act in a self preserving manner, meaning that the will fight for their independence. a marriage of two holons does not destroy the holons, but only alters their appearance and also creates a single entirely new higher holon. every molecule is a type. every brain hemisphere is a type (holon). every organ is a type. the lung is not a part of the stomach, it is a separated on its own level, but only on a lower level it seems to be connected (ie by a sea of protein), but the lower level does not concern the lungs properties as holon. on a higher leven (thorso) lung and stomach seem to be connected as well. they are, but only on that higher level of structure. type is either a separated structural holon in our spirit (or a constellation of interactive holons, ie functions), or it is false = it is not a type, it is a theory that is wrong and deluded and should be abandoned. we don't know, we need to find out.

if you want a statistical tool about length of hairs, or amounts of aggression .. go for it, we had plenty of these in the past, we still have the DSM or five temperaments, but they don't deserve the name typology. not only do they not refer to actual types, a lot of them do not even refer to horizontal differences (differentiations of holons on a common level of structural complexity), but to vertical differences of different levels, meaning that in some falsely labeled "typologies" you could grow from one type (ie primitive) into another type (ie educated). such statistical tools of arbitrary "zooming in or out" are not typologies, neither are statistical tools that have a grasp on not arbitrary but actually separated stages of structural order.

I hate to burst your bubble, dude, but there's no reason to believe (empirically or even theoretically) that MBTI is anything more than a statistical tool. It's merely a dimensionality reduction.

MBTI is descriptive, not prescriptive. People that use it prescriptively will no doubt run into problems.
 

nanook

a scream in a vortex
Joined
Jul 22, 2007
Messages
1,361
but there's no reason to believe

there is only carl jung, who was skillful in observing and abstracting nature. and this is the kind of abstraction that does find actual patterns, which are not based on statistics, but based on character-recognition, meaning recognition of the intrinsic structure of a single entity, which defines that entity as entity (or holon), because its that intrinsic structure that shows the significant actions of a holon (self preservation among others). this is introverted recognition of patterns. the type is not derived from comparison (differentiation) to other types. it is only this recognition or intrinsic nature that understands typology. a large body of modern type-theory is abuse of the topic by extroverted means. but this is not true type anymore. sorry to break it to you.

however, the basic intrinsic entities that have been recognized, are the functions, not the types that consist of these functions.
(sorry, mlittrell but typology without functions is not typology any more)

so, dichotomies might actually be flexible in a single individual, to the point where the current state of integration of functions might be just random, rather than part of a natural repetitive process of growth.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
there is only carl jung, who was skillful in observing and abstracting nature. and this is the kind of abstraction that does find actual patterns, which are not based on statistics, but based on character-recognition, meaning recognition of the intrinsic structure of an entity, which define that entity as entity, because its that intrinsic structure that shows the significant actions of a holon (self preservation among others). this is introverted recognition of patterns. the type is not derived from comparison (differentiation) to other types. it is only this recognition that understands typology. a large body of moder type theory is abuse of the topic by extroverted means. but this is not true type. sorry to break it to you.

however, the basic recognized entities are the functions, not the types that consist of these functions. (sorry, mittrell but typology without functions is not typology any more)

"Introverted" recognition of patterns is all nice and dandy, but that doesn't mean it's true.

Also, as a rule, I tend not to care how skilled or smart or creative a person making a theory is. The content of the theory is all that matters...who cares about the author? What I'm saying is: I'm not going to bias my views of a theory because Jung created it. I'll judge it on its merits alone.

The concept of "Pure types" just makes no sense whatsoever, unless you're talking about prototypes, but those are just averages. They exist like averages exist -- they're useful in theory but mean essentially nothing in practice.

How can anyone claim to know (more importantly, claim to know that they know) the "intrinsic structure" of anyone else anyway?
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
where is your Ni, btw?

I like to limit my Ni with Thinking. Unbounded idea generation is much less efficient, since you can go far down paths that are entirely implausible and/or useless.
 

nanook

a scream in a vortex
Joined
Jul 22, 2007
Messages
1,361
I'm not going to bias my views of a theory because Jung created it. I'll judge it on its merits alone.

granted, but an N(i) theory must be judged by N(i), (not for instance by the deconstructive shadow of Ti). albeit it must also prove to be integrate-able into the whole of all perspectives. so whatever you understanding of "merits" are .... might me the right way, or might be an intrusion of one discipline into another discipline, which it could not even grasp in the first place.

i already said myself, that we are here to validate the theory.

we can not just abandon every theory and every means of intelligence, just because we are still in the process of integrating (comparing/synchronizing disciplines)

everything i said so far, is about defining what the typology must be. there is no purpose in diluting words. we have typology, and we can have as many statistical tools as we want.
 
Top