There isn't going to be much insight into anyone if they're miscategorized to begin with. It should have been obvious that miscategorization becomes inevitable if people are not permitted to answer questions truthfully. MBTI types are frequently nothing more than an artifact of a forced-choice testing method, rather than a tool yielding any significant level of insight.
If you want insight, try conversing with a person like any rational human being would. That way you won't be operating on little more than sloppy assumptions.
The same could be said for DISC or any other forms of testing...
Based on personal experience, I've found Jung's theory of neurosis regarding how the functions are interrelated to be very helpful and insightful at times. But it usually requires an external observer to comment simply and innocently on my behavior and give me the proper clues/cues to recognize a neurosis - it's enlightening, like coming out of a mental twilight zone.
What's cool about the cognitive functions is that when reductionism is applied to parts of the past you can decipher certain patterns that help guide you into making better decisions with other people and yourself (this assumes dynamically changing and always evidently abstract cognitive functions at all times though). And that means I can't use it as a typing tool. But I get the feeling that even if I could successfully use it as a typing tool that it would conflict with my desire to have a free will. I feel like all the other problems really result from this one problem. But I guess it's a moot point. (and maybe it's not really a problem)
Who views it as an "Answer"? An answer to what?
I just view it as a categorization system of thought processes based on intangible qualities percieved in people. Obviously, there is no literal "Ti" process in the brain. Obviously, there is no foolproof way of determining a person's type, including your own.
I consider it to be like categorizing other human traits. Even visible ones aren't always agreed upon. For example, there are 5 basic hair color categories: red, brown, blond & black. We all know there are more than 5 hair colors in the world. There are infinite colors. However, most of us can identify a category that fits our hair color best, and determine one for others. Having very distinct categories makes it easier to choose one, instead of being stuck between two similar categories with only small, nuanced differences. Occasionally, you will look at someone & see dark blond hair, but someone else sees light brown hair, and so now the best category for their hair color is very much a matter of individual perspective. I see personality typology in a similar vein. The best type match can be a matter of perspective, and some people don't fit as neatly into one category as others. That doesn't mean the whole system is entirely useless, it's just limited in what it can describe.
"Charlotte sometimes dreams a wall around herself. But it's always with love - So much love it looks like everything else. Charlotte Sometimes - So far away, glass sealed and pretty." - The Cure
That's right. Forced-choice testing in particular.
In the end, the only way to have insight into someone is if they validate what you think is true.
Originally Posted by Jaguar
Nice try, but it doesn't address my post.
Now that you've amended your post, I will respond.
The only way to gain insight into someone is to watch their behaviour since most people aren't terribly self-aware and say a lot of things they either want to believe or they feel they'll get maximum mileage out of. In observations, a personality pattern will emerge.
As far as trying to type someone else, it's easier to say what they aren't than what they are. But trying to type someone else is more for fun or interest sake, than to be taken terribly seriously.
I've stated the basic assumption of JCF already: Jung asserted that cognitive functions create a certain character. You can read this for yourself in Personality Types. His discussions of the individual types are divided into two distinct parts. The first part discusses the function itself; the second part analyzes the character produced by this function. All I'm saying is that there is no proof that the first part leads to the second.
You're absolutely right. However, I don't think JCF necessarily includes those profiles, which are candidly a product of Jung's personal experience. I'm just as leery about simulatedworld's JCF profiles for the same reason: they're based off of anecdotes and a collective of overarching patterns in behavior. It's the reader's responsibility to take it for its reductionism, to understand that it's a narrow interpretation of individuals, and move on.
The functions themselves are beautifully basic. However, I think it's an error to assume that a personality is reduced to them from the totality of its parts. It's the other way around - the personality reduces the functions.
You can't read someone's mind, of course, but Jung, being an introvert, made a procedure out of working his way out of the subject until it was about the object. He was initially inspired by the object, but precisely focused on the underlying mechanics of what he observed and how it corresponded with his own thinking.
Honestly, I think it's extremely peculiar that you examine personality by the vocabulary one uses and the way they dress. As far as I'm concerned, these are almost as irrelevant as what position one sleeps in and whether they slurp their spaghetti or eat it in chunks. Furthermore, it's excruciatingly literal and concrete. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure you're deriving theory from it, but when I'm getting to know someone, I focus on how they think, in depth. Why? Why Why Why is the question I ask myself. Vocabulary and attire are just as superficial as culture and everything else that's perverted the innocence of a person's core.