• 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.

How NOT to do typology

Dashy CVII

New member
Joined
Jan 10, 2018
Messages
105
MBTI Type
INTJ
One does not simply not do typology. This thread must be a figment of my imagination.

mTXlOr1.png
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
How, considering the underlying premises of Jung weren't always accurate or complete, and that typology is a pseudo science, at best.

That's not a criticism that I accepted.

However, there is some merit to how our way of analyzing the errors of other forum members was derogatory.

Jung's theoretical framework is fundamentally sound, the problem is with the MBTI and other superficial offshoots of his work.
 

rav3n

.
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
11,655
That's not a criticism that I accepted.

However, there is some merit to how our way of analyzing the errors of other forum members was derogatory.

Jung's theoretical framework is fundamentally sound, the problem is with the MBTI and other superficial offshoots of his work.
Explain the bolded in full detail.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Explain the bolded in full detail.

Carl Jung studied the fundamental traits of one's inborn temperament. Conversely, the proponents of the modern MBTI tend to focus on the superficial, highly observable behavioral traits.

The former avenue is more indicative of the fundamental differences between people than the latter.

Although Jung's framework is not as well supported by empirical evidence as the OCEAN model, the two systems are compatible.

For example, the distinction between Introversion and Extroversion is known to exist and volumes of data had been published on it. Likewise, the distinction between Intuition and Sensing closely correlates with the Openness criterion of the Big Five. Of course, there are fundamental differences between the two traits and some aspects of Jung's concept of the irrational function is difficult to research in an empirical fashion, but it still sheds light on many key differences between individuals.

To a lesser degree, Thinking and Feeling corresponds to the agreeableness criterion. Yet, even without the reference to the Big Five paradigm, it's obvious that some of us have a natural tendency to make decisions based on facts and what we believe to be the "objective truths" and others are more inclined to proceed in a person-centered fashion. There is also a clear-cut gender bias with regard to this criterion of Jungian typology, that's a well-documented fact.

Similarly, the Judging/Perceiving dichotomy corresponds loosely to the conscientiousness criterion of the Big Five, but this aspect of the system is best conceptualized as the direction of our dominant judging function. That is, if our dominant judging function is introverted, then we focus most of our conscious thought on our inner world. That is the case with people who rely more Introverted Thinking or Introverted Feeling than on Extroverted Thinking or Extroverted Feeling. By contrast, people whose dominant judging function is extroverted tend to direct their conscious thought at the external world, which results in orderly behavior.

This concept becomes even more interesting in light of how Jung regarded the perceiving functions as "irrational". Such a theoretical orientation suggests that people who rely on Extroverted Judgment tend to have chaotic inner-lives, as their dominant introverted functions are "irrational". Hence, they willingly accept structure, order and external constraints. On the other hand, people who rely mostly on the introverted judging functions are more comfortable with their inner life and their "irrational" outlook on the external world allows them to feel comfortable with the chaos around them.

To be sure, many aspects of Jungian typology need to be defined more clearly so researchers can conduct additional empirical studies on them, but that's probably not going to happen any time soon as the subject-matter is of rather limited professional interest.

Nonetheless, none of this goes to show that the topic we're concerned with here is little more than pseudo-science. Usually, that point of view belies one's failure to understand the complexity of Jung's theoretical framework and many arrive at this conclusion simply because their understanding of the Jungian type is best on the MBTI pop-psychology.
 

rav3n

.
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
11,655
  • Firstly, correlation does not imply causation.
  • Next, correlation was found relative to the dichotomies which you've just trashed.
  • Lastly, only one correlation was significant and that's E/I. If we parse that correlation, extroversion is people/socially focused in the E/I dichotomy theory and in the big five, where Jung states that extroversion has an external object orientation and introversion, subjective orientation. People might or might not be involved.

So your explanation appears to lack some serious analysis.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Firstly, correlation does not imply causation.

My point is that the Jungian typology and the OCEAN paradigm reflect similar phenomena that are worth studying.

Causation is entirely irrelevant here, which is why I never mentioned it. For one strange reason or another, it may seem significant to you, but it's completely beside the point.

Next, correlation was found relative to the dichotomies which you've just trashed.

Nowhere did I say that the MBTI dichotomies were unimportant. However, I maintained that the proponents of the MBTI theory oversimplified the underlying Jungian concepts and failed to convey the finer points of the subtlest aspects of his theoretical framework. In other words, much of their work may still be useful, it just leaves a lot of complex questions unanswered.

Lastly, only one correlation was significant and that's E/I.

Significant in what sense?

If we parse that correlation, extroversion is people/socially focused in the E/I dichotomy theory and in the big five, where Jung states that extroversion has an external object orientation and introversion, subjective orientation. People might or might not be involved.

Relevance?

So your explanation appears to lack some serious analysis.

Your response appears to show some serious lack of reading comprehension.
 

rav3n

.
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
11,655
My point is that the Jungian typology and the OCEAN paradigm reflect similar phenomena that are worth studying.
No. MBTI dichotomies reflect similar phenomena.

Causation is entirely irrelevant here, which is why I never mentioned it. For one strange reason or another, it may seem significant to you, but it's completely beside the point.
It's extremely relevant.


Nowhere did I say that the MBTI dichotomies were unimportant. However, I maintained that the proponents of the MBTI theory oversimplified the underlying Jungian concepts and failed to convey the finer points of the subtlest aspects of his theoretical framework. In other words, much of their work may still be useful, it just leaves a lot of complex questions unanswered.
What complex questions? Expand in detail.

Significant in what sense?
p =<0.05 aka 5% or less statistical probability that the findings were the result of chance.

Relevance?
Wat? E/I dichotomy significantly correlates with the extroversion/introversion trait in Big Five because they both define it as social orientation where Jung does not.


Your response appears to show some serious lack of reading comprehension.
Moreso your inability to understand my responses.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
No. MBTI dichotomies reflect similar phenomena.

The two are grounded in the same concept, you're imagining a distinction where there isn't one. MBTI is merely an interpretation of Jung's theoretical framework.

It's extremely relevant.

It's a total non-sequitur, the onus is on you to explain what causation has to do with anything.


What complex questions? Expand in detail.

One of the common criticisms of the MBTI system is that it's too rigid, as people often identify with multiple types or have trouble finding a four-letter code that suits them well. To resolve this confusion, they need to study the Jungian framework which the MBTI represents. In so doing, they will answer the most fundamental question of typology: what is a psychological type and how can we identify it in human behavior?

p =<0.05 aka 5% or less statistical probability that the findings were the result of chance.

In your previous post, you've noted that only E/I is "significant". So, is it your contention that all other dichotomies of the MBTI are a "result of chance"? If so, then why do you bother indicating your type in your profile? You might as well just state whether you're an E or an I and call it a day.

Or do you merely maintain that because no known correlations between the OCEAN Model and the last three MBTI dichotomies, we should think of the latter as "pseduo-science, at best"?

E/I dichotomy significantly correlates with the extroversion/introversion trait in Big Five because they both define it as social orientation where Jung does not.

Okay, now we are getting somewhere. So, do you have studies showing that the only correlation MBTI and the Big Five is regarding the Extroversion criterion?

I'd like to see them. Moreover, I am even more interested in how the researchers in question were able to show that there is no correlation between other attributes of these two personality systems or furthermore, how, the two have no conceptual similarities.

It may be possible that there isn't enough evidence to reveal other similarities between these two systems, but a dearth of evidence is not to be confused with a refutation of my hypothesis. The onus may still be on me to obtain the corroborating data, but unless you can show how this supposition is fundamentally implausible or contradictory to the well-documented facts, there is no reason to abandon it.
 

Lord Lavender

Bluered Trickster
Joined
Oct 21, 2016
Messages
5,851
MBTI Type
EVLF
Enneagram
739
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
Personally I think typology has no solid right or wrong way to do it as such as there isn't a solid "scientific method" as such behind typing but there are still standards like not using shallow sterotypes like surface behavior and hell some even use the physical appearance of a person to type
 

Smilephantomhive

Active member
Joined
Aug 11, 2015
Messages
3,352
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
This is the result of placing too much importance on mbti which is what people with severe identity issues do. It can be good to use as a starting point to explain yourself, and to help you introspect, but mbti is only one part of you.

I agree with [MENTION=30122]Lord Lavender[/MENTION] that it is not scientific. I also think many people use mbti to feel better about themselves, and naturally hate on others that are a different type because they view people as types and not people.

It's like identifying as gay but not much else.

The best thing is to be the stronger person and understand that not everyone who makes a typology post or article knows your type. You have to believe that you know yourself more than anyone else.
 

rav3n

.
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
11,655
I am not looking for converts, but in a nutshell, the abuse of typology is essentially a deviation from the original principles Jung laid down in Psychological Types. For Jung, type represented general cognitive tendencies and that is why he primarily analyzes works of poetry, philosophy and the sciences in his attempts to shed light on the key characteristics of each type. Modern typologists, from Isabella Briggs to Keirsey repudiated Jung's method and reconstructed typology as an analysis of highly visible behavioral traits that are taken to be the defining characteristics of each type. The problem with this approach is that it commits the fundamental attribution error or the unwarranted assumption that one's behavior is a reflection of his or her fundamental temperament rather than that of circumstances. As you may see, the evidence that most of the authors of fallacious quotes cited in this thread frequently misinterpreted the way people behaved in response to certain situations for infallible indicators of their type.

The two are grounded in the same concept, you're imagining a distinction where there isn't one. MBTI is merely an interpretation of Jung's theoretical framework.



It's a total non-sequitur, the onus is on you to explain what causation has to do with anything.




One of the common criticisms of the MBTI system is that it's too rigid, as people often identify with multiple types or have trouble finding a four-letter code that suits them well. To resolve this confusion, they need to study the Jungian framework which the MBTI represents. In so doing, they will answer the most fundamental question of typology: what is a psychological type and how can we identify it in human behavior?



In your previous post, you've noted that only E/I is "significant". So, is it your contention that all other dichotomies of the MBTI are a "result of chance"? If so, then why do you bother indicating your type in your profile? You might as well just state whether you're an E or an I and call it a day.

Or do you merely maintain that because no known correlations between the OCEAN Model and the last three MBTI dichotomies, we should think of the latter as "pseduo-science, at best"?



Okay, now we are getting somewhere. So, do you have studies showing that the only correlation MBTI and the Big Five is regarding the Extroversion criterion?

I'd like to see them. Moreover, I am even more interested in how the researchers in question were able to show that there is no correlation between other attributes of these two personality systems or furthermore, how, the two have no conceptual similarities.

It may be possible that there isn't enough evidence to reveal other similarities between these two systems, but a dearth of evidence is not to be confused with a refutation of my hypothesis. The onus may still be on me to obtain the corroborating data, but unless you can show how this supposition is fundamentally implausible or contradictory to the well-documented facts, there is no reason to abandon it.
Okay, I'm tired of this discussion since you're weaseling around, manipulating what you've clearly stated so I'll summarise.

You trashed MBTI. MBTI has some correlation and one significant correlation to Big Five. The Big Five trait with significant correlation to MBTI is E/I. The reason why they significantly correlate is that they're both premised on social interaction orientation where Jung's theory does not. You can't trash something and then use it as evidence of your beliefs. Yes, beliefs and faith, rather than any well reasoned logic.

If you want the studies, google them yourself. They're easy to find.

Anyways, my perspective is that all typologies whether Jung, MBTI, Kiersey (hate his fucking profiles for the NTJs since they're over-the top complimentary), Cognitive Functions (most fun variety), Enneagram, Big Five, etc., have interesting observations about people and can be useful, particularly when focus is put on the process, rather than the goal of typing. Yeah, I'm a J who focuses on process, at least relative to typologies, since they're a journey of self-discovery. The less self-aware people are, the less they'll be able to type themselves. It's a conundrum since to type themselves, it requires not only brutal honesty to themselves but the ability to discern preferential patterns within themselves. And yet, most seek typologies to find themselves, hence why my suggested journey focus.

Except for Big Five which is about as close to science as it gets, the rest are pseudo science at best.

Or maybe I should summarize like this. Quit playing pseudo-intellectual social games. You know squat about typologies, judging by your responses to me. And I'm far from being an expert, only a dabbler.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Okay, I'm tired of this discussion since you're weaseling around, manipulating what you've clearly stated

What's wrong, getting stressed out about the obnoxious conversation you've initiated?


so I'll summarise.

Don't bother, with your level of reading comprehension, it's next to impossible.

You trashed MBTI.

No, I didn't. Go back and re-read the parts you've bolded. The limitation of MBTI is that it focuses too much on the highly observable traits, it has many other less severe issues. Yet, that doesn't mean we need to discard it altogether.

If we find a theory to be on the right track but lacking in certain respects, it means we need to improve it, not trash it.
MBTI has some correlation and one significant correlation to Big Five. The Big Five trait with significant correlation to MBTI is E/I.

This is the most well-researched and well-documented of correlations between the two systems. Yet, despite a scarcity of research into how the other aspects of MBTI and Big Five interrelate, there are other important similarities that still need to be researched in greater detail.

The reason why they significantly correlate is that they're both premised on social interaction orientation where Jung's theory does not.

That is completely irrelevant. Social interaction is one aspect of human behavior that psychologists can study in an empirical manner. They can also study all of the other attributes that were discussed in both systems.



You can't trash something and then use it as evidence of your beliefs. Yes, beliefs and faith, rather than any well reasoned logic.

There is nothing I can do to help you until your reading comprehension improves.

If you want the studies, google them yourself. They're easy to find.

That's not how it works. When you pretend to know something because of a study you passingly allude to, you have to cite it. I've already done too much to help you look like you have something meaningful to contribute, so you're on your own the rest of the way.

Anyways, my perspective is that all typologies whether Jung, MBTI, Kiersey (hate his fucking profiles for the NTJs since they're over-the top complimentary), Cognitive Functions (most fun variety), Enneagram, Big Five, etc., have interesting observations about people and can be useful, particularly when focus is put on the process, rather than the goal of typing.

Completely meritless. There are enormous differences between Keirsey and Jung. The Enneagram is an entirely differeny system. The fact that you're running them all together shows that you don't have the foggiest idea as to what you're talking about.



Yeah, I'm a J who focuses on process, at least relative to typologies, since they're a journey of self-discovery.

"J" just refers to Extroverted Judgment. Rational functions refer to conscious judgment, be they introverted or extroverted. Relying on extroverted judgment more than on introverted judgment does not make you any more or less focused on "processes".


The less self-aware people are, the less they'll be able to type themselves. It's a conundrum since to type themselves, it requires not only brutal honesty to themselves but the ability to discern preferential patterns within themselves. And yet, most seek typologies to find themselves, hence why my suggested journey focus.

This is nothing more than your fanciful self-indulgence and this notion offers no meaningful content as to what typology is or how others can learn about it.

Except for Big Five which is about as close to science as it gets, the rest are pseudo science at best.

The Big Five is the most empirically well-researched model. The MBTI and various other Jungian systems can also be treated in such manner, but the empirical investigations in question have not been carried out to this end.

Or maybe I should summarize like this. Quit playing pseudo-intellectual social games. You know squat about typologies, judging by your responses to me. And I'm far from being an expert, only a dabbler.

You see no contradiction here? By your own admission, you are a dabbler, which implies that you're not in the position to evaluate the level of knowledge others display.

You'd be well advised to educate yourself on the Dunning Kruger effect.

The Dunning Kruger effect on our forums

That will make this forum much less frustrating for you and it will benefit you in many other walks of life.
 

everdream

New member
Joined
Mar 12, 2018
Messages
22
MBTI Type
INFJ
I am sure we're all quite familiar with many of the absurd inferences people draw about a certain type. Common examples of such preposterous claims include the following.

Most of such claims imply that certain superficial behaviors are evidence that a person does or does not have a particular type.

1. I am a certain type therefore I have this or that quality. E.G, I am an INTJ and I am therefore very good at planning.
2. I am naturally good at X, therefore I am this or that type. E.G, I am always very imaginative, so I must be an N.
3. This person's line of reasoning is deplorable, so he cannot be a Thinking type.
4. This person is insensitive, chauvinistic, arrogant, repressive, so definitely not a Feeling type.
5. I am an Intuitive type, I've known my friend all of my life, he is too smart to be a sensor.
6. No way this guy is an intuitive type, he is too practical and pragmatic.
7. He takes control of his life, he thinks ahead, so he must be a J.
8. He is very judgmental and direct in his assessments of human behavior, J is for judging, right? So there you go, he is a judging type.
9. He is good at memorization, so he is definitely a Sensor.
10. This person is boring, so not an SP.

These basic statements merely represent a limited number of strategies that could be employed in spotting typological absurdities, but as a general principle, you can look for hasty generalizations, assertions that are almost completely divorced from the original Jungian theory, excessive personalization of type and so on.

What I ask you to do this in thread is the following, cite absurd typological statements without making any reference to their authors. The purpose of this thread is to shed light on how "folk typology" arises and hopefully motivate our members to think about this topic with greater care and precision. Individuals who uttered absurdities are more than welcome to make an appearance in this thread to defend their position or clarify their line of reasoning, however, it is not up to us decide if their identity is to be revealed. To avoid early polemics and accusations of trolling, I will not cite any statements that were made on this forum (at least not in the OP), I'll leave that to you!

When you cite the preposterous typological statement that was made on this forum, be sure to explicate your rationale for deeming it to be non-sensical and remain open to any possible objections that may arise.

Agreed. Behaviorism to me is just a tip of the iceberg for how cognitive functions work.
 
Top