• 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.

Is This Science?

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
evolving the eight functions

The four archetypes of shadow — Opposing Personality, Senex/Witch, Trickster, and Demonic Personality — and the function - attitudes they carried for me — introverted intuition, extraverted thinking, introverted feeling, extraverted sensation — were all what a psychologist would call ego-dys-tonic. That is, they were incompatible with my conscious ego or sense of ‘I-ness’— what I normally own as part of ‘me’ and ‘my’ values. Nevertheless, they were part of my total functioning as a person, uncomfortable as it made me to recognise the fact.
In this way, using myself as an example, and my years of Jungian analysis as a laboratory, I eventually came to identify eight discrete archetypes guiding the way the eight function-attitudes are expressed within a single, individual psyche.

Of course he identified eight archetypes, if that's the conclusion he wanted. Interesting page, but I wonder how scientific his methodology is?
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
No, it's purely abstract, and based largely on his own self-experience. Like much of typology is.
The only hope for scientific credibility would seem to lie in the brain studies. You can't observe a function like a visible thing, though they are supposed to be translators of the cognitive traffic between the limbic system and the cortex. Someone posted a report with scans showing the areas of the brain the Big Five factors supposedly use (which is the system with the most "scientific" respect right now). I would say solidifying type's connections to that system (which I have been arguing, is slightly different from the statistical correlations that have been done; I think different type factors are more directly connected to FFM than three of the MBTI dichotomies used) would help. Also, if the whole right/left brain theory of the function attitudes could be verified.

Still, there's probably no way to scientifically map the complexes (that's what the archetypes become when personalized) to the functions. The archetypes are basically "emotionally freighted images" that we translate into those complexes through the related functions, and while we might be able to see the brain activity, there would be no way to verify the archetypal images being translated. The most you could do is test a bunch of people in various situations, to see if they have the same complexes.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I guess that's true assuming some kind of brain scan is the only possible scientific method of affirming the existence of functions. If the whole thing relies on collective unconscious theory then there is no scientific validity much less verification. If archetypes are presumed to exist as Platonic ideas then this is religion and not science.

Introspection is too personal to be science, using himself as a "laboratory" is an interesting experiment but we don't know if the results are true or false. And how do we know the functions are universal? Do they apply to people in the Far East? Do they apply to his next door neighbor? How does he know there aren't 9 functions instead of 8?

Why don't the ennea-type 3's get a function in Riso's theory?
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Of course he identified eight archetypes, if that's the conclusion he wanted. Interesting page, but I wonder how scientific his methodology is?

Well, that specific question hinges on this one: Is it verifiable? Science as a field does have a definition, and it includes studies needing to be replicable/verifiable independent of the researcher.

I guess that's true assuming some kind of brain scan is the only possible scientific method of affirming the existence of functions. If the whole thing relies on collective unconscious theory then there is no scientific validity much less verification. If archetypes are presumed to exist as Platonic ideas then this is religion and not science.

Introspection is too personal to be science, using himself as a "laboratory" is an interesting experiment but we don't know if the results are true or false. And how do we know the functions are universal? Do they apply to people in the Far East? Do they apply to his next door neighbor? How does he know there aren't 9 functions instead of 8?

You got it, those are all problems with this type of field. And the cultural divide can be large, where we mistake a cultural cue for a standard aspect of a universal "type". (As a minor example, for awhile people would assume that MBTI SJs "looked" a certain way...i.e., traditional 1950's American social structure and values... but as the culture changes, SJs now can look different.) We can't even get outside of our own cultural biases easily, and certaintly not without conferring with people from other cultures.

Why don't the ennea-type 3's get a function in Riso's theory?

Presumably because:
1. There are only eight Jungian functions (which now is a problem in correlating one system to another -- it might not hook up evenly).
2. Enneagram Threes seem to be less driven by a function and more driven by success... and the Three changes in whatever ways allows the image of success to be created. (Did I get that right?)
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Well, that specific question hinges on this one: Is it verifiable? Science as a field does have a definition, and it includes studies needing to be replicable/verifiable independent of the researcher.



You got it, those are all problems with this type of field. And the cultural divide can be large, where we mistake a cultural cue for a standard aspect of a universal "type". (As a minor example, for awhile people would assume that MBTI SJs "looked" a certain way...i.e., traditional 1950's American social structure and values... but as the culture changes, SJs now can look different.) We can't even get outside of our own cultural biases easily, and certaintly not without conferring with people from other cultures.

The ISFPs certainly look different. All of the baby boomer ISFPs that I've met have been hippyish. The x-generation ISFPs have blended in with some other countercultural manifestation.

I would say this guy is an ISFP


Presumably because:
1. There are only eight Jungian functions (which now is a problem in correlating one system to another -- it might not hook up evenly).
2. Enneagram Threes seem to be less driven by a function and more driven by success... and the Three changes in whatever ways allows the image of success to be created. (Did I get that right?)

If you're talking about the archetype of the 3, which is really just a static description in a book, then there is apparently no Jungian function to represent it. But if you're talking about people who score as type 3 (and who are seriously underrepresented on this forum), then you're saying that 3s are people who do not use cognitive methods. Is that correct? Or perhaps they don't have souls?
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
If you're talking about the archetype of the 3, which is really just a static description in a book, then there is apparently no Jungian function to represent it. But if you're talking about people who score as type 3 (and who are seriously underrepresented on this forum), then you're saying that 3s are people who do not use cognitive methods. Is that correct? Or perhaps they don't have souls?

I wouldn't be surprised to find out Tom Cruise was just a manic soulless golem who perfected the money shot of running really fast in a movie. :D

I'm saying the 1-1 ratio of cognitive method to Enneagram archetype is too simplistic. Probably most archetypes are some sort of mix of cognitive functions, not primarily centered around just one, and so Three should also be given its own mix if such a correlation is to be attempted. The fabrication is in that assuming that each enneagram type matches up with one and only one JCF, which leaves poor little Three out in the cold.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I wouldn't be surprised to find out Tom Cruise was just a manic soulless golem who perfected the money shot of running really fast in a movie. :D

I'm saying the 1-1 ratio of cognitive method to Enneagram archetype is too simplistic. Probably most archetypes are some sort of mix of cognitive functions, not primarily centered around just one, and so Three should also be given its own mix if such a correlation is to be attempted. The fabrication is in that assuming that each enneagram type matches up with one and only one JCF, which leaves poor little Three out in the cold.

In other words, the 3 is chameleon-like, therefore it has and expresses no Dominant function. Or perhaps there is just the Dominant function du jour.

The existence of such people really throws Jungian dogma for a loop.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Naama over on Perc added these links to studies on the brain in relation to the MBTI dichotomies (still have to study it myself).
Naama; http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/53115-functions-brain.html#post1248237 said:
its not just left or right brain or anything that simple. there are many brain areas from all over the brains contributing to one function and not only that, there are also differences on delta, theta, alpha, beta 1, beta 2, and beta 3 bandwidths.

first pdf shows it in pictures, second i just found and dont have time to look deeper, but it seems like a legit study

http://aptinternational.org/assets/jptvol65_1105_apti.pdf

http://itech.pjc.edu/pgram/pdfs/PETEMBTIJAN.pdf
(Is Naama the same as our "INTP"?)

(As a minor example, for awhile people would assume that MBTI SJs "looked" a certain way...i.e., traditional 1950's American social structure and values... but as the culture changes, SJs now can look different.) We can't even get outside of our own cultural biases easily, and certaintly not without conferring with people from other cultures.
I have noted (having SJ parents who rebelled against the screwed up society they grew up in), that for SJ's, if the traditions/memories were either undesirable, or unrecoverable, they believe in "creating new memories/traditions". To me, with Si as tertiary or "Puer", that left me totally dry. No way; I must relive exactly the way it was, and if it was bad; to relive the good parts without the bad.

Presumably because:
1. There are only eight Jungian functions (which now is a problem in correlating one system to another -- it might not hook up evenly).
2. Enneagram Threes seem to be less driven by a function and more driven by success... and the Three changes in whatever ways allows the image of success to be created. (Did I get that right?)

The enneagram types looked like dead ringers for the five temperaments, plus "moderate" blends, so the 3 would seem to fit these blends:
http://www.pastoral-counseling-cent...f-Inclusion/choleric-phlegmatic-inclusion.htm
http://www.pastoral-counseling-cent...f-Inclusion/sanguine-phlegmatic-inclusion.htm
http://www.pastoral-counseling-cent...ea-of-Control/choleric-phlegmatic-control.htm
http://www.pastoral-counseling-cent...ea-of-Control/sanguine-phlegmatic-control.htm

The Inclusion blends would lie between In Charge and Get Things Going (EST/F; ENJ/P), and the Control blends would be between NT and SP. So if this is true, then yes, the type would be all over the place, cognitively.

The Choleric/Sanguine blends between Inclusion and Control (ExTP's) are also very common 3's, so it really does look like the 3 is simply some sort of Choleric-Sanguine hybrid (with 8 as the purest Choleric, and 7 as the purest Sanguine). Thus, the real correlation is with temperament, not functions. (Some temperaments do seem to more closely fit functions, Like Choleric—8—Te). For the 3, the functions will be determined by exactly which of those possible San/Chlor blends they more closely fall into.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
The Choleric/Sanguine blends between Inclusion and Control (ExTP's) are also very common 3's, so it really does look like the 3 is simply some sort of Choleric-Sanguine hybrid (with 8 as the purest Choleric, and 7 as the purest Sanguine). Thus, the real correlation is with temperament, not functions. (Some temperaments do seem to more closely fit functions, Like Choleric—8—Te). For the 3, the functions will be determined by exactly which of those possible San/Chlor blends they more closely fall into.

The MBTI has temperaments also. Those are Kiersey-Bates SJ - SP - NF - NT. So there is no need to correlate those traditional temperaments to functions such as Te. In the MBTI the Te is associated with J, where there is only one J temperament, the SJ. The SJ temperament is AKA the Guardian. So in the long run you have -

SJ = choleric
SP = sanguine
NF = melancholic
NT = phlegmatic
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
There are different views on those. Keirsey actually said SJ=Melancholic and NF=Choleric. (And he rejected the functions). I believe NF=Phlegmatic (or supine), and NT is Choleric. Another level of temperament (even though it's not usually called that) is Interaction Style as well. Both dom. Te's, for instance, are In Charge or Choleric: EST(J); EN(T)J.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
There are different views on those. Keirsey actually said SJ=Melancholic and NF=Choleric. (And he rejected the functions). I believe NF=Phlegmatic (or supine), and NT is Choleric. Another level of temperament (even though it's not usually called that) is Interaction Style as well. Both dom. Te's, for instance, are In Charge or Choleric: EST(J); EN(T)J.

"Keirsey said" this and that, and I'll assume you're right; however, Keirsey is not here to explain his reasoning to us, and anyway you may have gotten that from a third party on this forum in a thread that you took part in: "While it would seem difficult to call NF Phlegmatic, there are a few explanations for this." Yes, it would seem to be difficult. And Phlegmatic (supine) has been generally rejected as a temperament category by psychologists, but we can ignore them for speculative purposes. You say Interaction Style is not usually called a kind of temperament, so that pretty much derails your own argument even though IS was built on Keirsey's work.

Since I don't see where Keirsey has explained his reasoning, here's mine in a nutshell.

From the wikipedia article on the Four Temperaments -

The Sanguine temperament personality is fairly extroverted. People of a sanguine temperament tend to enjoy social gatherings, making new friends and tend to be quite loud. They are usually quite creative and often daydream. However, some alone time is crucial for those of this temperament. Sanguine can also mean very sensitive, compassionate and thoughtful. Sanguine personalities generally struggle with following tasks all the way through, are chronically late, and tend to be forgetful and sometimes a little sarcastic. Often, when pursuing a new hobby, interest is lost quickly when it ceases to be engaging or fun. They are very much people persons. They are talkative and not shy. For some people, these are the ones you want to be friends with and usually they become life long friends. Sanguine can be sometimes emotional.
[Matches SP but diverges into F a lot too ('people persons')]

A person who is choleric is a do-er. They have a lot of ambition, energy, and passion, and try to instill it in others. They can dominate people of other temperaments, especially phlegmatic types. Many great charismatic military and political figures were cholerics. They like to be leaders and in charge of everything.
[Matches SJ]

A person who is a thoughtful ponderer has a melancholic disposition. Often very considerate and get rather worried when they could not be on time for events, melancholics can be highly creative in activities such as poetry and art - and can become occupied with the tragedy and cruelty in the world. A melancholic is also often a perfectionist. They are often self-reliant and independent; one negative part of being a melancholic is sometimes they can get so involved in what they are doing they forget to think of others.
[Closely matches NF, esp. NFJ and enneatype 4]

Phlegmatics tend to be self-content and kind. They can be very accepting and affectionate. They may be very receptive and shy and often prefer stability to uncertainty and change. They are very consistent, relaxed, rational, curious, and observant, making them good administrators. However they can also be very passive-aggressive.
["Rational, curious, and observant" matches NT which is called the "rational" temperament]

It's not a perfect match, but close enough for gubmint work.
 
Top