Renunciation Of Typology

[Savage Idealist]

From the moment I came across the four letter system that revealed insight and depth into the human character, I became fascinated with it. I obsessed over the various types, and over time I came to learn more and more about it, in addition to other forms of psychological classification of the human mind. However, I have reached the point where such tools like the cognitive functions and the enneagram are no longer of proper use nor integral value to me. My reason for the abandonment of typology is not on the notion that such a thing doesn't exist (that is to say, not real); although as it stands I see it more as a psychological philosophy constructed from the perspective of other men, a philosophy that has little testing under the scrutinizing scope of science. My reason for it's abandonment has more to do with the sheer inadequacy of the system itself, and it's lack of constructive use within the real world. These systems, as wonderful as they seem, are but the subjective frameworks of crackpot psychologists who formed their own interpretation of human beings, thus obviously creating a folly, as even though we are all guilty of such methods of thought, even these extraordinary thinkers thought the world in a distorted way. The result is a system that is far, oh so far, from perfect; indeed it's rather broken almost; incomplete. Now some would object saying that a combination of these various frameworks can yield the proper insight into the human mind; but even that idea is ridiculous. Suppose we took broken or worn down machine parts, and placed them together in order to build a vehicle. Now of course the whole would be greater than the sum of its parts, yet the end result would still be a shoddy and odd vehicle; not very reliable. But if we were to construct better parts instead, then to put them together would give us a vehicle so magnificent, that it would speed us across the highway that is the human psyche, yielding far much more insight that what is at our disposal now. Thus to the current system, I'd say good riddance. I have more practical matter in the realm of intellectual thought to divert my attention to, but for those individuals still ambitious enough, I'd say that you hear my advice and venture towards a better construction for your tools of understanding.

 

[Savage Idealist]

For the record:

-No I'm not leaving TypeC, cause this place is still too awesome to leave.

-I'm not entirely against the idea of typing others via the current system, just more skeptical about doing so.

-I'm keeping the sig; awesome fruity colors and emoticons kazoo; HELLS YEAH!

 

[Viridian]

I understand... Good luck then, hope you'll stick around.

 

[Savage Idealist]

Of course I'll stick around; after all the current typology system can be toyed with when it comes to typing others, and I do have freinds here

 

[Eric B]

Are you joining the Victor club?

 

[iwakar]

@ OP If you expected typology to account for individuality, then little wonder you're suddenly disenchanted.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

I'm going with the "Just because you can't find a practical purpose for this system doesn't mean one doesn't exist." argument.

I think you are equating subjectivity with wrong, which is not true.

 

[Little_Sticks]

Hah. We'll see. I think I said that to myself on about 10 different occasions before I finally went through enough data, reasoning, and theory to truly renounce it.

There probably are some uses for it though. One I can think of off the top of my head is psychological warfare to confuse an enemy. You could probably also use it to justify profiling of people you just really don't like or want working for you independent of their true MBTI type result. I mean companies use psychological profiling for a lot of jobs anyway (sometimes MBTI related?). Eh, technically, an interview is the same as profiling, so yeah.

I wonder what other ways MBTI could be used in the world. *puts fist under chin and ponders*

 

[ICUP]

While there are many "fill in the blanks" in the books I've studied thus far, and apparently much undiscovered and undescribed, the information seems mostly correct to me, and it has improved my life.

Are you planning to create your own system?

 

[lane777]

So look into Arnos Profile System. 4913 "personalities" = much better accuracy.

 

[Thalassa]

Could you please make yourself a little more stereotypically INFP?

 

[ICUP]

So look into Arnos Profile System. 4913 "personalities" = much better accuracy.

I'll check it out..... thx.

 

[freeeekyyy]

So look into Arnos Profile System. 4913 "personalities" = much better accuracy.

Greater precision; not necessarily greater accuracy.

 

[lane777]

I'll check it out..... thx.

Np.

Eric B made a site dedicated to it: http://www.erictb.info/temperament1.html

Greater precision; not necessarily greater accuracy.

pre·ci·sion
   [pri-sizh-uhn]

–noun
1.
the state or quality of being precise.
2.
accuracy; exactness: to arrive at an estimate with precision.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/precision

 

[Thunderbringer]

pre·ci·sion
   [pri-sizh-uhn]

–noun
1.
the state or quality of being precise.
2.
accuracy; exactness: to arrive at an estimate with precision.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/precision

The 2 might seem similar, but from what I remember from my 10th grade science class, they're different. Basically, imagine playing darts and tossing 5 unto the board. You hit all quadrants of the dartboard and the bullseye. In this case, you'd be accurate, since you hit the bullseye, but you're not precise since your shots are all over the place. If you tossed the darts again, but all the darts hit the lower right quadrant, you'd have precise, but inaccurate shots.

 

[Mole]

I'm going with the "Just because you can't find a practical purpose for this system doesn't mean one doesn't exist." argument.
.

MBTI does have a practical pupose. It was plaigerised by Mrs Briggs and her daughter Mrs Myers to induct women into the war machine seventy years ago. And in the meantime it has been used by the military to induct recruits, and by business to induct employees.

 

[Mole]

Taking the flack

Are you joining the Victor club?

Savage Idealist is savage enough to renounce MBTI but not savage enough to attack MBTI.

And if you are savage enough to attack MBTI on Central, you must take the flack.

So no one joins the Victor club without a flack jacket, not even Victor.

Jack Flak is, of course, our role model. But he was foolhardy enough to operate without a flack jacket or knowing even how to spell 'flack'. Jack would always spell it 'flak' until he was shot down.

And that's why we call him Jack Flak. His enemies called him Jack Flake, but they can't hurt him any more. So that's why we step into the breach wearing our flack jackets.

So don't let it happen to you. I wouldn't let you come sailing with me without a life jacket, so I wouldn't let you join the Victor club without a flack jacket.

 

[lane777]

The 2 might seem similar, but from what I remember from my 10th grade science class, they're different. Basically, imagine playing darts and tossing 5 unto the board. You hit all quadrants of the dartboard and the bullseye. In this case, you'd be accurate, since you hit the bullseye, but you're not precise since your shots are all over the place. If you tossed the darts again, but all the darts hit the lower right quadrant, you'd have precise, but inaccurate shots.

Both words wouldn't exist if they were identical - however, they're so similar they're often used interchangeably... bottom line, I'm sure people will get what I'm driving at.

Particular much?

 

[Savage Idealist]

Are you joining the Victor club?

Victor has a club?

@ OP If you expected typology to account for individuality, then little wonder you're suddenly disenchanted.

Indeed.

I'm going with the "Just because you can't find a practical purpose for this system doesn't mean one doesn't exist." argument.

I think you are equating subjectivity with wrong, which is not true.

Not exactly; just because something is subjective doesn't mean it's objectively wrong for everyone, hell aside from physical scinces, I think most truths are inherently subjective. Really, it's because I can't find a practical purpose for this system means that it's not right for me.

Hah. We'll see. I think I said that to myself on about 10 different occasions before I finally went through enough data, reasoning, and theory to truly renounce it.

There probably are some uses for it though. One I can think of off the top of my head is psychological warfare to confuse an enemy. You could probably also use it to justify profiling of people you just really don't like or want working for you independent of their true MBTI type result. I mean companies use psychological profiling for a lot of jobs anyway (sometimes MBTI related?). Eh, technically, an interview is the same as profiling, so yeah.

I wonder what other ways MBTI could be used in the world. *puts fist under chin and ponders*

Well, if I were to design a fictiona lcharacter, using MBTI as a referational guide to create an initial mold of that character would probably still be useful. But in terms of understanding the human mind, I still think there's some flaws to it.

While there are many "fill in the blanks" in the books I've studied thus far, and apparently much undiscovered and undescribed, the information seems mostly correct to me, and it has improved my life.

Are you planning to create your own system?

Not really; I would rather wait until someone comes along with their own system, one that is far more precise and accurate than the system that we use now.

So look into Arnos Profile System. 4913 "personalities" = much better accuracy.

4913 personalities? I'll look into that.

Could you please make yourself a little more stereotypically INFP?

Wait, are you being sarcastic?

Savage Idealist is savage enough to renounce MBTI but not savage enough to attack MBTI.

And if you are savage enough to attack MBTI on Central, you must take the flack.

So no one joins the Victor club without a flack jacket, not even Victor.

Jack Flak is, of course, our role model. But he was foolhardy enough to operate without a flack jacket or knowing even how to spell 'flack'. Jack would always spell it 'flak' until he was shot down.

And that's why we call him Jack Flak. His enemies called him Jack Flake, but they can't hurt him any more. So that's why we step into the breach wearing our flack jackets.

So don't let it happen to you. I wouldn't let you come sailing with me without a life jacket, so I wouldn't let you join the Victor club without a flack jacket.

Aw damn. I'm not sure who this Jack Flak is, but he sounds cool.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

Much more reasonable .