User Tag List

Results 1 to 5 of 5

  1. #1
    Member Electric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    entj
    Posts
    80

    Default Is Lenore Thomson's theories trustable?

    I have read some of her quotes and they seem utterably subjective and linear. Perhaps this is due to a lack of understanding from my laziness to invest my time in her work. Anyone here have objection or enthusiasms?

  2. #2
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Her work has been discussed here in the past in independent threads; if you use advanced search you might pick up those posts.

    She seems to say much of value, although I know she hasn't sold me on everything... especially when she types celebrities. And the brain section assignments might be a little forced. But she usually does seem to have a very useful and provocative definition of the different functions and how they interlock.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  3. #3
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    11,925

    Default

    The question is whether any theory can be trusted? It's a theory, which means it is probably subjective, a rationale based on an individual's internal point of view. Jung's descriptions of the cognitive processes were very vague, which left his studiers to come up with different theories about what Jung meant. Lenore Thomson is just one of the many interpreters. With MBTI type theory, people often guess the types of famous people. This is often based on the aspects of the personality they want to see, but in truth, the only way a person could ever hope to find out a famous person's type is if the famous person takes the MBTI.

  4. #4
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Lenore's theories are somewhat interesting if you are already well-versed with MBTI and Jungian theory, so that you can note the similarities and differences in order to compare her system with others to see what works for you.

    Can it be trusted as an official MBTI reference? No, because it's not exactly the same theory. Can it be trusted as a tool to help you understand behavior? Potentially, but you should still compare it with other tools.

    Unfortunately, there's no efficiency measurement that can tell you which tool is best for understanding people at this particular level. What helps one person may confuse another. Since part of what is being measured is somewhat subjective, the choice of best measurement tool and units is also subjective.

    If you're looking for something you can trust or use as an evaluation of some sort, you should probably not be looking at personality theory. Aptitude tests and such are a better standard for assessing someone's ability or potential to do something than this sort. In fact, there's a disclaimer on MBTI claiming that it's known not to be fit for use in hiring/firing processes, and they urge people not to use it for such a purpose.

  5. #5
    Member Electric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    entj
    Posts
    80

    Default

    Well I know that there is always a percentage error with every scientific law or theory. For me, Lenore's theories may possibly pass my percentage error of rejection. It seems to me that there is not an equality/nihilism of values for her. She obviously prefers introversion. She paints a heroic picture for introverts and the opposite for extroverts. This is why I'm finding her theories disagreeable. Although I don't use Jungian theory as an exact science like physics, I find it more representing of the nihilistic reality than the subjective one.

    EDIT: However, she does have some good perceptions that I will leave or take.

Similar Threads

  1. Is the Big Bang Theory supported by scientific evidence and why or why not?
    By RaptorWizard in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 07-13-2013, 01:52 PM
  2. So Much for Lenore Thomson's *ahem* "Tertiaries"
    By Mal12345 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 06-25-2013, 12:00 PM
  3. Get a new personality type with Lenore Thomson's test!
    By Walking Tourist in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 212
    Last Post: 09-30-2012, 03:33 PM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-04-2011, 06:44 PM
  5. [JCF] Leanor Thomson's Theory and INFP cognitive functions
    By heart in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-31-2007, 01:07 AM

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