User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 37

  1. #21
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    So if I am understanding BlueWing correctly, it is impossible for people to be say ENXP, one is either a thinker or a feeler, there is no in between. There is no "I am sometimes a thinker and sometimes a feeler depending on circumstances." We hold our unconscious preferences no matter the outside circumstances.

  2. #22
    ish red no longer *sad* nightning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INfj
    Posts
    3,741

    Default

    As usual BW... your eloquent writing style makes it difficult to read. Although I must say the style is becoming more flowing... an improvement. But still, the length of your essays makes it a chore.

    As requested, my brief comments while skimming.

    In this essay I shall argue that the behaviorist approach which is reminiscent of Keirsey's typology is inadequate...
    This idea rings plausible, however, in order for us to definitely state such a conclusion about the individual we must thoroughly observe his lifestyle and biography. We are not in the position to accomplish this due to the limitation of our faculties.
    Was it not the reason why the tests asks the individual to identify their type? Seeing as how they should be the ones who know themselves the best? They are specifically told to address the questions based on their "typical" behavior.

    Pray kick me in the ass if I'm confusing MBTI testing protocol with Keirsey's.

    we could boldly declare that the behaviorist is not aware of the essence of type itself, but only of the external manifestation thereof.
    One must not forget the main purpose of the behaviorist is not to understand the mind or even the person. They merely seek to predict an individual's behavior. To such, the mind is a functional blackbox... all he care about is the effect of situations (inputs) affects behavior (outputs). With that said, I highly doubt Keirsey ,or to generalize to any type theorists, can be behaviorists.

    The type in itself is amorphous and indescribable because it inheres within the nature of mind incommensurable to anything we may observe in the external world and intelligibly depict in the terms of our language. However, to make matters bearable, we can have some access to this phenomenon by embracing the approach of philosophy of mind and not behaviorism, as the latter stultifies us in the shallow waters.
    Type is indeed amorphous... if it, in fact, exists in the first place. I've previously brought up my views to you in private communications. I do believe people have certain tendencies which manifest themselves as traits... and perhaps these traits can be grouped and named... with MBTI labels I/E, S/N, T/F, J/P. However I do not see why dichotomy between traits must exists. Empirical evidence from the population suggests it does not. Trait distribution follows a bell curve.

    With this in mind... I have to raise the question concerning whether temperament and distinct types truly exists. Perhaps that are merely due to artifical categorizing. Following that line of thought, the validity of the underlying judging and perceiving cognitive functions pertaining to specific types must also be questioned.

    Allow the obviously non-existent Te in me to step in. Until that issue is addressed in a satisfactory manner, I do not see a purpose in further discussion on the detail theories behind dichotomized "traits". (And no, I did not bother with reading more of your writing beyond that point)

    Oh. I also have an issue with rationalization of how minds work. I do not see how such theories can be proven with logics. The only way to prove it in my mind is via empirical testing. Unfortunately even in this day and age such is beyond the skills of mankind.

  3. #23
    Senior Member ThatsWhatHeSaid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    7,233

    Default

    Yay for word games.

  4. #24
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightning View Post

    Was it not the reason why the tests asks the individual to identify their type? Seeing as how they should be the ones who know themselves the best?
    Perhaps, but irrespective of how introspective a person tends to be, they're still human, can't be able to answer the questions for what they truly ask.

    I figure there's more than one factor to this. The first is that no one even CAN observe their behavior closely enough as to be able to answer the questions as directly as the semantics require.

    Second is; language, as cumbersome as it is, can scarcely describe in full, all the cognitive work, much less ask questions distinguishable enough to make a thorough investigation. We'd need so many questions that no one would be able to finish the test.
    we fukin won boys

  5. #25
    ish red no longer *sad* nightning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INfj
    Posts
    3,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nocapszy View Post
    I figure there's more than one factor to this. The first is that no one even CAN observe their behavior closely enough as to be able to answer the questions as directly as the semantics require.
    Based on what you're saying... observations cannot produce accurate data. Now how does the use of logic and intuition instead of observation help in solving the problem? Both perception and interpretation are subjected to bias. Garbage in, garbage out... or in this case bias data in, bias results out. Let us not forget that the human mind is flawed. We see patterns even when none exists. Science obtain knowledge through strict formal empirical testing. Philosophy does not have that.

    (edit: yes I know you haven't argued against the rest of what I've said... but it happen to come up on my mind.)

    Second is; language, as cumbersome as it is, can scarcely describe in full, all the cognitive work, much less ask questions distinguishable enough to make a thorough investigation. We'd need so many questions that no one would be able to finish the test.
    Agree with you on the problems with language and meaning. That has always been a problem with surveys and questionnaires.

  6. #26
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightning View Post
    Based on what you're saying... observations cannot produce accurate data. Now how does the use of logic and intuition instead of observation help in solving the problem? Both perception and interpretation are subjected to bias. Garbage in, garbage out... or in this case bias data in, bias results out. Let us not forget that the human mind is flawed. We see patterns even when none exists. Science obtain knowledge through strict formal empirical testing. Philosophy does not have that.

    (edit: yes I know you haven't argued against the rest of what I've said... but it happen to come up on my mind.)
    You misunderstood my post. I didn't say observations can't yield results. I said that we can't make scrupulous enough observation. We can't look closely enough.
    we fukin won boys

  7. #27
    ish red no longer *sad* nightning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INfj
    Posts
    3,741

    Default

    If we can't look closely enough... then our observations are flawed. That was my extrapolation from your post. My apologies.

    So if we can't look closely enough to observe a person's every move, is there an alternate method of arriving at this data?

  8. #28
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Training one's self to look for important cues would work. That requires learning exactly what each of the functions do, then making a concerted effort for identifying those behaviors in yourself. Even then, it's still hard to get it just right because, as has been stated several times type is amorphous. Not just that, but it's difficult to know exactly what's going on in one's head -- especially for those unconscious perceiving functions.

    The best we can do, is make good guesses.
    we fukin won boys

  9. #29
    ish red no longer *sad* nightning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INfj
    Posts
    3,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nocapszy View Post
    That requires learning exactly what each of the functions do, then making a concerted effort for identifying those behaviors in yourself.
    Here lies my fundamental doubt about the system of types and temperaments. How do we know these functions exists in the first place? To me, the only way to know is by empirical testing. If our observations can be bias then we never know for sure.

    The best we can do, is make good guesses.
    I dislike making guesses based upon a hypothetical framework made up of more guesses.

    A model is only as good as its predictions...

    Everything I've tried looking at people in terms of type I see that it has little predictive value with their behavior.

    What use is a theory, no matter how intricate and complex, if it's all made up? If I want to hear a story... I will go pick up a fiction.

    /end of Te rant

  10. #30
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Ah. Here is where Ti trumps his extroverted self.

    We know they exist, because jung and his followers were careful enough not to predict anything. Only to figure out and describe what was already going on.

    It's possible to be unbiased. Many think it's impossible. They're wrong. If you're careful to look at every paradigm and axiom, and spin them into a web of everything that is, making no predictions, but only looking at what's already there, then we can deal with them without bias.

    One thing people often confuse with bias is insufficient education. Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we're biased. It just means there's more work to be done before we start doing any real figuring. Or, if not that, then we keep our predictions tentative, and don't wind an entire yarn of theories hinged on a single hunch or an assumption. You mentioned something about this in your post.

    The problem with most, even those who've cast aside the testing for observational analysis and function theory is that they don't quite fully understand what each function does.

    It can be taken apart, and figured mathematically.

    The functions account for all possibilities. Every way we have of taking in information, and every way we have of dealing with or disposing of it.

    Before anyone can go any further, they have to understand that.

    I'll try and not take over your thread BW.
    we fukin won boys

Similar Threads

  1. Evolution of typology
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 150
    Last Post: 01-31-2013, 05:33 AM
  2. Problem of Religious bigotry
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-26-2013, 03:57 PM
  3. how typology turned into a a problem of my soul
    By nanook in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-29-2011, 07:19 AM
  4. A Note on the Problem of Induction
    By reason in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-19-2007, 08:47 AM
  5. Problem of Problematicality
    By reason in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-23-2007, 05:36 PM

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