How NOT to do typology

[Coriolis]

there is a gray area to be walked here - pushing it to either extremes will break the system:

if every pattern and behavior can be linked to any type, how do you state that "someone is not type X"? everyone is every type.
if you eliminate natural human behaviors from various types, a type is going to be an empty silhouette with no person to apply to.

I'm not sure what you mean by pattern, but every behavior CAN be linked to every type. The types are then distinguished much less by what they do than by why the do it, and in many cases, how. Greenfairy is right in that each type tends to have certain clusters of behavior, but observing that behavior does not guarantee that the individual demonstrating it is of that type.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

if every pattern and behavior can be linked to any type, how do you state that "someone is not type X"? everyone is every type.

Accurate type identification requires an analysis of fundamental cognitive tendencies, an analysis of behaviors is merely an unwarranted shortcut that frequently leads to howlers thoroughly documented in this thread.

 

[Society]

Accurate type identification requires an analysis of fundamental cognitive tendencies, an analysis of behaviors is merely an unwarranted shortcut that frequently leads to howlers thoroughly documented in this thread.

and you determine which cognitive tendencies those are by what choices they make, what they do & what they express.

I'm not sure what you mean by pattern, but every behavior CAN be linked to every type. The types are then distinguished much less by what they do than by why the do it, and in many cases, how. Greenfairy is right in that each type tends to have certain clusters of behavior, but observing that behavior does not guarantee that the individual demonstrating it is of that type.

i agree that we're looking for general predispositions, and you can't determine much of a person's general dispositions by a single events (you can determine a lot more if they share with you how they process those event after, but even then). what i was talking about though - and perhaps phrased poorly - was the generalizations of functions to the point where every behavioral predisposition can be associated with every type.

this actually has become a noticeable problem when you take the full spectrum of typology practiced here as a whole (which neither of them are meant for, but since we're using all of them...): MBTI, enenagram, tritype, instinctual variants.

does a predisposition tendency to act socially towards being liked come from someone being SO-dom or are they SX-dom FJs? is it dominant enough to call them e3/e2s? is someone persistent & reliable with their work practices an STJ keeping to the plan? an SP-dom afraid of loosing their grounding? maybe it's an FJ seeking what is expected of them at home (which you don't see at all)? but wait, we forgot shadow functions... maybe it's a really depressed ESxP? or maybe it has nothing to do with it because its a behavior and we can't possibly describe what would go through someone's head and motivate them and enable them behind a behavior... maybe their doing it out of compassion to a mouse that is threatened by aliens waiting to pull the trigger the moment they would slack off change plans or be spontaneous...
we don't even need to look that far - take @greenfairy - some think she's an NTP because she tends to break the information down and work along lines of synthetic thinking, others say she has to be an FP because what she view's as a Ti like analysis is often applied to the realm of metaphysics, spirituality & philosophy? because Ti can't possibly work such soft and esoteric paradigms or have eclectic beliefs ... others say those tendencies are the realm of Ni because apparently NJs are mystics so if your a mystic you have to be an NJ.... or... you'd get be caught & fired by the council of NJs.. or something.... but wait, did we forget loops? we have to bring up loops - so Ni Ti.. she's an ISTP/INFJ! let us embrace the old tradition and say she's an unhealthy STP because she doesn't follow into our paradigms and that means she's possessed by something unnatural and is obviously sick and needs us to cure her with god damn leeches in her face and ritualistically dancing the makarena while giving her therapy and meds to cure her evil unnatural loop...btw greenfairy did you do shopping this week? did you have a list in your head of what you needed? sorry, we can't have TPs/FJs having such well thought out plans in advance, if you did you must have Te there...

you see my point on how ridicules this can get?

 

[greenfairy]

Haha Mane, thanks for your insightful analysis as always.

 

[EJCC]

Found a good one yesterday:

no one thinks they're an so/sp, because everyone desires sex.

The person who wrote this post is not the person doing typology wrong -- but they bring up a common misunderstanding on what it really means to be sx-first or second.

 

[Cellmold]

[MENTION=15291]Mane[/MENTION] this is similar of course to my own complaints as you are well aware. Since I've repeated them ad nauseum.

But I have realised that it is best to sit down and discuss how a person comes to their conclusions, that usually gives at least some insight into a process, that merely observing behavior does not. Conclusion > reasoning behind it.

 

[Society]

[MENTION=15291]Mane[/MENTION] this is similar of course to my own complaints as you are well aware. Since I've repeated them ad nauseum.

But I have realised that it is best to sit down and discuss how a person comes to their conclusions, that usually gives at least some insight into a process, that merely observing behavior does not. Conclusion > reasoning behind it.

ah, how can one forget the active NeFe'rs... i think there's like 6 of you now? NFish SFJs / NTPs? maybe you need to covert more and make your stand for the 17th type... but the system can't be broken, so you have to be, even though in so many fashions you seem healthier then most actual ENTP/ESFJs and don't show any of the fuckedup non stop spasm-ish run around in mental circles paralysis signs that genuine "extrovert-extrovert" loop's report having - hey i fit into the ENTP description like a dick into a custom made flashlight, i've actually had experiences that can best be explained as NeFe loops... to frame those times as your norm and what you are all the time? it doesn't fucking work...

honestly, there are some things about the standard ways in which we do typology that should genuinely belong in this thread.

 

[The Great One]

and you determine which cognitive tendencies those are by what choices they make, what they do & what they express.



i agree that we're looking for general predispositions, and you can't determine much of a person's general dispositions by a single events (you can determine a lot more if they share with you how they process those event after, but even then). what i was talking about though - and perhaps phrased poorly - was the generalizations of functions to the point where every behavioral predisposition can be associated with every type.

this actually has become a noticeable problem when you take the full spectrum of typology practiced here as a whole (which neither of them are meant for, but since we're using all of them...): MBTI, enenagram, tritype, instinctual variants.

does a predisposition tendency to act socially towards being liked come from someone being SO-dom or are they SX-dom FJs? is it dominant enough to call them e3/e2s? is someone persistent & reliable with their work practices an STJ keeping to the plan? an SP-dom afraid of loosing their grounding? maybe it's an FJ seeking what is expected of them at home (which you don't see at all)? but wait, we forgot shadow functions... maybe it's a really depressed ESxP? or maybe it has nothing to do with it because its a behavior and we can't possibly describe what would go through someone's head and motivate them and enable them behind a behavior... maybe their doing it out of compassion to a mouse that is threatened by aliens waiting to pull the trigger the moment they would slack off change plans or be spontaneous...
we don't even need to look that far - take @greenfairy - some think she's an NTP because she tends to break the information down and work along lines of synthetic thinking, others say she has to be an FP because what she view's as a Ti like analysis is often applied to the realm of metaphysics, spirituality & philosophy? because Ti can't possibly work such soft and esoteric paradigms or have eclectic beliefs ... others say those tendencies are the realm of Ni because apparently NJs are mystics so if your a mystic you have to be an NJ.... or... you'd get be caught & fired by the council of NJs.. or something.... but wait, did we forget loops? we have to bring up loops - so Ni Ti.. she's an ISTP/INFJ! let us embrace the old tradition and say she's an unhealthy STP because she doesn't follow into our paradigms and that means she's possessed by something unnatural and is obviously sick and needs us to cure her with god damn leeches in her face and ritualistically dancing the makarena while giving her therapy and meds to cure her evil unnatural loop...btw greenfairy did you do shopping this week? did you have a list in your head of what you needed? sorry, we can't have TPs/FJs having such well thought out plans in advance, if you did you must have Te there...

you see my point on how ridicules this can get?

We do need to take other factors into account though. I disagree.

 

[Mal12345]

Has anybody here defined what it means to "do" typology?

 

[Society]

Has anybody here defined what it means to "do" typology?

bingo! that is the question:

if functions are nothing but semantics - turn of the century neologism - then we would be making no assumptions. can you ask "is someone like this because he is a giant or is he like this because he is tall?" <- there would be no conflict, one attribute is contained within the other.

a lot of people seem to agree that it is just that - a semantic framework - and yet somehow we ask "is someone considering others doing it because they are an so dom, a strong Fe user or an e3/2"? that make sense if functions where actual features of the mind - cognitive mechanisms - but it doesn't work if we take them at face value as mere descriptions.

so are we analyzing how someone works or are looking for the right words to describe them?

 

[Society]

Has anybody here defined what it means to "do" typology?

bingo! that is the question:

if functions are nothing but semantics - turn of the century neologism - then we would be making no assumptions. can you ask "is someone like this because he is a giant or is he like this because he is tall?", "are they dark haired or black haired?" <- there would be no conflict, one attribute is contained within the other, your hair isn't absorbing light because it's either black or dark, those are two descriptions using different spectrum that overlap.

a lot of people seem to agree that it is just that - a semantic framework - and yet somehow we ask "is someone considering others doing it because they are an so dom, a strong Fe user or an e3/2"? that make sense if functions where actual features of the mind - cognitive mechanisms - but it doesn't work if we take them at face value as mere descriptions.

so are we analyzing how someone works or are looking for the right words to describe them?

 

[Coriolis]

and you determine which cognitive tendencies those are by what choices they make, what they do & what they express.

You can guess this way, but you would do better to ask why and how they arrive at the choices they make, and why they are expressing themselves in the observed manner and situations.

this actually has become a noticeable problem when you take the full spectrum of typology practiced here as a whole (which neither of them are meant for, but since we're using all of them...): MBTI, enenagram, tritype, instinctual variants.

I'm not sure how helpful it is to mix up the typing systems this way, especially MBTI and enneagram. In my albeit limited experience, it has been more useful to use enneagram to distinguish among different expressions of a given MBTI type, than to do the reverse.

a lot of people seem to agree that it is just that - a semantic framework - and yet somehow we ask "is someone considering others doing it because they are an so dom, a strong Fe user or an e3/2"? that make sense if functions where actual features of the mind - cognitive mechanisms - but it doesn't work if we take them at face value as mere descriptions.

so are we analyzing how someone works or are looking for the right words to describe them?

We are analyzing how someone works, and then using a well-known shorthand notation to describe them, sort of how light with wavelengths ranging from about 625-740 nm is all called "red" though it includes many shades of red, intensities, polarization states, etc.

The better question to ask is: why is this person considering others, and their wants and needs? Answers could range from: that is how they would like to be treated; they were brought up to do so; they care about others and want them to be happy; things work more smoothly when people are considerate of each other; if they act considerately, the other people will be more willing to do them a favor later. Each motivation suggests a different type, or close cluster of types. Ask many questions of this nature, and the answers in aggregate should align with one type over the others.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Yeah, it seems to me that when he talks he talks big, airy mechanism. In fact, his language includes a lot of accidental ambiguity--for eg. "when you talk to people about them, in a place like this where this is the normal state of business"--that arises from him knowing what he's referring to but us having to choose something before we can understand where he's gone with that. That doesn't formally rule out INTP, of course. It just makes him sound, to me, like Ni. But before I say INTJ, the lack of a high school diploma and the attempt to join special forces is throwing me. Is he really an under-educated INTJ? Or is he ISTP, because when they get going they sound weird and airy too. I don't know a reason to positively say INTP one way or another. (Except perhaps that he's too plainly scared to be INTP, whatever that means.)

Does anybody see problems with this?

 

[Mal12345]

Does anybody see problems with this?

Yes.

"For eg." is redundant.

If I wrote anything like that on this forum, I would pay the admin $50,000 to ban me.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Yes.

"For eg." is redundant.

If I wrote anything like that on this forum, I would pay the admin $50,000 to ban me.

What about the inferences the author employs to justify his speculations concerning Snowden's type. Are you persuaded by his argument that Snowden cannot be an INTP because he looks "too scared" or because he sounds "airy"?

 

[Mal12345]

What about the inferences the author employs to justify his speculations concerning Snowden's type. Are you persuaded by his argument that Snowden cannot be an INTP because he looks "too scared" or because he sounds "airy"?

I use multiple methods for typing people, but the particular method demonstrated there is pretty much bottom of the barrel typism.

 

[Jaguar]

Does anybody see problems with this?

Was the person posting drunk or sober?

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Was the person posting drunk or sober?

Quite sure he was sober, he posted this shortly after he started a thread in search of Snowden's type. Sounds like jejune twaddle to me.

I tell you what. Did he have a messy desk? If he did, you can have him.

What do we think of this groundbreaking assertion?

 

[Jaguar]

What do we think of this groundbreaking assertion?

I tell you what. Did he have a messy desk? If he did, you can have him.

I think it's utter stupidity.

Btw, I have a messy desk. Even my I-have-to-arrive-early-for-an-appointment father has a messy desk.

 

[skylights]

And this ENFP keeps her desk neat and tidy. It's a good cover.

On the subject of how not to do typology, ever associating intelligence and type, including IQ, which tests for whatever the current committee behind the IQ test decides "determines intelligence", not actual ability or potential.