How NOT to do typology

[Il Morto Che Parla]

lol@Socionics, their poorly translated English, and their grim neo-Soviet websites.

 

[RaptorWizard]

Today's psychologists have substituted thought dynamics for functional definitions, and the wander off through logical deduction after precise classification, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to personality - ahem, SolitaryWalker!.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I'm not sure this cheating problem is type related; it sounds like something any sleezy bastard of any type could do.

If you want to know what types are more likely to do this sort of thing though, the ISTP and their lack of loyalty would make them an option.

But like I said before, this sounds like universal problem in our society - perhaps it could be fixed by learning to better appreciate one another and our conflicting points of view.

Does anyone else have more citations of scarcely coherent folk typological utterances reminiscent of the one above? If so, I'd be delighted to analyze them here.

Today's psychologists have substituted thought dynamics for functional definitions, and the wander off through logical deduction after precise classification, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to personality - ahem, SolitaryWalker!.

If you are going to post in my thread, strive for clarity and concision. The purpose of writing is to set up a dialogue with the other party, obscuring your message in needlessly ornate statements does not help. I am not impressed with your arcane manner of exposition and recherche vocabulary, I've long grown out of that phase and I suggest you do that too.

 

[Society]

If you want to know what types are more likely to do this sort of thing though, the ISTP and their lack of loyalty would make them an option.

Does anyone else have more citations of scarcely coherent folk typological utterances reminiscent of the one above?

i can't argue that it's coherent (its possible i'm missing the context), BUT i can argue that it's not necessarily a misuse of MBTI: while functions do not control what values you hold, it's not unreasonable to think that certain functions can make upholding certain values easier.

for example, though not to derail the thread:

Si could make upholding negative commitments - a.k.a. commitments about what NOT to do - a lot easier. to take the mentioned case of cheating, let's say an Si dom is being kissed by someone other then the person they are committed too - the Si dom (for simplicity sake) would be a lot more likely to pay more attention upon the contrast between what they are expecting (who they are used to kissing) and who they are actively kissing, and thus a lot less likely to simply get lost in the moment of kissing someone. the decision of then returning the kiss and perhaps going on to cheating will have to be a lot more deliberate. an Se dom can likewise decide not too, but will have to do so with a lot more conscious effort. both might have the same value, but for no reason greater then the nature of their sensory faculty, one has to deliberately decide to cheat, while the other has to deliberately remind themselves not too.

i have no idea if that's the logic behind the quoted condemnation of ISTPs, since the quoted poster didn't make their logic visible in the part you quoted, but the lack of coherence does not in itself suggest a misuse.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

i can't argue that it's coherent (its possible i'm missing the context), BUT i can argue that it's not necessarily a misuse of MBTI: while functions do not control what values you hold, it's not unreasonable to think that certain functions can make upholding certain values easier.

for example, though not to derail the thread:

Si could make upholding negative commitments - a.k.a. commitments about what NOT to do - a lot easier. to take the mentioned case of cheating, let's say an Si dom is being kissed by someone other then the person they are committed too - the Si dom (for simplicity sake) would be a lot more likely to pay more attention upon the contrast between what they are expecting (who they are used to kissing) and who they are actively kissing, and thus a lot less likely to simply get lost in the moment of kissing someone. the decision of then returning the kiss and perhaps going on to cheating will have to be a lot more deliberate. an Se dom can likewise decide not too, but will have to do so with a lot more conscious effort. both might have the same value, but for no reason greater then the nature of their sensory faculty, one has to deliberately decide to cheat, while the other has to deliberately remind themselves not too.

i have no idea if that's the logic behind the quoted condemnation of ISTPs, since the quoted poster didn't make their logic visible in the part you quoted, but the lack of coherence does not in itself suggest a misuse.

The fact that Se in some sense makes licentious behavior easier does not prove that SPs are more likely to cheat. Whether a person engages in deplorable promiscuity has more to do with the personal values they have developed due to their influences and personal choices. The fact that they may have been slightly less likely to develop such deplorable values had they belonged to another type is rather trivial because the influence of type is marginal.

 

[Society]

The fact that Se in some sense makes licentious behavior easier does not prove that SPs are more likely to cheat. Whether a person engages in deplorable promiscuity has more to do with the personal values they have developed due to their influences and personal choices. The fact that they may have been slightly less likely to develop such deplorable values had they belonged to another type is rather trivial because the influence of type is marginal.

pay attention - i gave an example where both had the exact same value - and explained how Si made it easier to uphold that particular value.

this is entirely separate topic form whether someone is likely to have that value in the first place (which has a lot more to do with upbringing, the questions they've encountered, their view of relationships from their parents, media that influenced them, and a thousand other factors).

holding a value - believing in it, and upholding a value - acting in accordance to it, are not the same thing (wouldn't life be easy if they were?). the functions don't influence the value in this case, but they influence the direction from which upholding it takes place, and thus the level of conscious effort with it.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

pay attention - i gave an example where both had the exact same value - and explained how Si made it easier to uphold that particular value.

this is entirely separate topic form whether someone is likely to have that value in the first place (which has a lot more to do with upbringing, the questions they've encountered, their view of relationships from their parents, media that influenced them, and a thousand other factors).

holding a value - believing in it, and upholding a value - acting in accordance to it, are not the same thing (wouldn't life be easy if they were?). the functions don't influence the value in this case, but they influence the direction from which upholding it takes place, and thus the level of conscious effort with it.

The claim that it is easier for one type to uphold a certain value than for another offers only minimal support for the conclusion that people of a certain type are more likely to engage in this or that deplorable behavior. Again, your claim does nothing to show that the above cited statement from the typological ignoramus was not an abuse of typology.

 

[Society]

The claim that it is easier for one type to uphold a certain value than for another offers only minimal support for the conclusion that people of a certain type are more likely to engage in this or that deplorable behavior.

actually it does - if two people are pushing heavy levers, and lever A is easier to push then lever B, then for them to have an equal chance of pushing the lever, the person pushing lever B has to be stronger.

likewise, if the task is mentally easier for an Si dom then it is for an Se dom, then for them to have an equal chance at performing the task, one would have to assume that the later has a higher capacity for conscious effort or willpower. in this case, i see no reason for that to be true.

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

Men are biologically programmed to spread our seed as wide as possible.

It's cultural influences that would make us not cheat on partner, not the other way round.

And also looks. The better looking a man is, more opportunities he will have open to him for quick sex.

(Maybe money as well, but the girl will usually in that case want more than just quick sex, thereby reducing the opportunity somewhat, though still it will be superior than in the case of a poor non-handsome man).

No man because of his type has any more or less biological sex drive to screw maximum number of women, than any other MBTI type.

Man's Nature > Type

 

[Winds of Thor]

Men are biologically programmed to spread our seed as wide as possible.

It's cultural influences that would make us not cheat on partner, not the other way round.

And also looks. The better looking a man is, more opportunities he will have open to him for quick sex.

(Maybe money as well, but the girl will usually in that case want more than just quick sex, thereby reducing the opportunity somewhat, though still it will be superior than in the case of a poor non-handsome man).

No man because of his type has any more or less biological sex drive to screw maximum number of women, than any other MBTI type.

Man's Nature > Type

^FTW!^ lol.

I'll add, perhaps more core to the crux of this argument, that before a man (and woman's) heart are ready for and to give true love, your above said has more of a likelihood of being true. Having said that, after (and most importantly if) a man's heart changes to want to only give a monogamous marriage, that is a greater determinant than any other as to whether giving without acts of moral/spiritual terpitude.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

actually it does - if two people are pushing heavy levers, and lever A is easier to push then lever B, then for them to have an equal chance of pushing the lever, the person pushing lever B has to be stronger.

likewise, if the task is mentally easier for an Si dom then it is for an Se dom, then for them to have an equal chance at performing the task, one would have to assume that the later has a higher capacity for conscious effort or willpower. in this case, i see no reason for that to be true.

[edited insult] post states that ISTPs are by nature more likely to cheat. Your contention was that people of a certain type may be more likely to uphold certain values that they already have. To support the ignoramus's conclusion, it needs to be shown that people of a certain type are not only more likely to uphold a certain value but to actually develop it solely by virtue of being the type in question.

 

[Society]

The ignoramus's post states that ISTPs are by nature more likely to cheat. Your contention was that people of a certain type may be more likely to uphold certain values that they already have. To support the ignoramus's conclusion, it needs to be shown that people of a certain type are not only more likely to uphold a certain value but to actually develop it solely by virtue of being the type in question.

not quite, follows the same error as above:

the comparison assumed two factors:
1. two people sharing the same value (of not cheating).
2. two people sharing the same capacity for conscious effort.
3. two people having a different set of cognitive functions.

since #3 resulted in a different likelihood of acting against that value, in order to assume an equal result, either #1 or #2 have to be uneven to compensate. if we're agreeing that #2 is equal and neither type has more "willpower" then the other, then for the results to be equal, 1# would have to somehow compensate for the results of the equation to be equal - in other words ISTPs would have to be more likely of developing the value.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

not quite, follows the same error as above:

the comparison assumed two factors:
1. two people sharing the same value (of not cheating).
2. two people sharing the same capacity for conscious effort.
3. two people having a different set of cognitive functions.

since #3 resulted in a different likelihood of acting against that value, in order to assume an equal result, either #1 or #2 have to be uneven to compensate. if we're agreeing that #2 is equal and neither type has more "willpower" then the other, then for the results to be equal, 1# would have to somehow compensate for the results of the equation to be equal - in other words ISTPs would have to be more likely of developing the value.

Your example only shows that a certain type renders a person more likely to cheat when premises 1 and 2 hold true. In most situations, they don't hold true and therefore, a person's type generally has little predictive value with respect to the individual's likelihood of engaging in promiscuity when it is deplorable to do so.

 

[Society]

Your example only shows that a certain type renders a person more likely to cheat when premises 1 and 2 hold true. In most situations, they don't hold true and therefore, a person's type generally has little predictive value with respect to the individual's likelihood of engaging in promiscuity when it is deplorable to do so.

on an individual basis - that would seem to be true. except that given that non of the factors measured by MBTI influence 1 or 2, if you take a large enough sample of Se doms and Si doms, averaging the factors of 1 & 2, you would have a higher percentage of the first conducting it then the later. then placed back to the individual - if 1 and 2 are unknown and all you know is that it's Se dom - then based on your knowledge at that given time, the likelihood becomes higher, since the Se dom in question can be any member of that given statistical sample. thus the word likely - the lack of sufficient information for conclusive predictions is inherit for the application of the word.

 

[Winds of Thor]

Men are biologically programmed to spread our seed as wide as possible.

It's cultural influences that would make us not cheat on partner, not the other way round.

And also looks. The better looking a man is, more opportunities he will have open to him for quick sex.

(Maybe money as well, but the girl will usually in that case want more than just quick sex, thereby reducing the opportunity somewhat, though still it will be superior than in the case of a poor non-handsome man).

No man because of his type has any more or less biological sex drive to screw maximum number of women, than any other MBTI type.

Man's Nature > Type

To expand, I think what you're describing can basically be described as an extension of general desire. To "cast bait as far and wide as possible" so to speak. Not to actually spread seed with as many as possible (men doing that would likely be dead), rather that it's a thinking or method to which would say exposure to many might narrow the choices to an ideal husband/wife. Maybe that's the instinctual drive.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

What do we make of this? Looks like folk typology is starting to interlace with telepathy, parapsychology and occult phenomena.

To cut a long story short, I have a theory that:

a) Mbti types have a characteristic vibe that can be detected through pictures.
b) Not every person will display that in a way that is so easily distinguishable.


I've been mostly testing the theory with INFPs (my current favorite type ), and I've designed a tentative model on how to detect an INFP through pictures:

Things to look for:

1. very expressive face, specially eyes
2. socially awkward vibe
3. not able to fake smiles (INFJs are much better on that)
4. seem to be very ''genuine''
5. scrutinizing look, like they are trying to derive conclusions about people (in contrast, INTPs will have a scrutinizing look that will look fairly emotionless)

Examples:

Thoughts?

I've been trying to create a model for INFJs, but they are more challenging to differentiate. Let's see how it goes.

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

To "cast bait as far and wide as possible" so to speak. Not to actually spread seed with as many as possible (men doing that would likely be dead)

Dead but with a smile on his face.

Or maybe on second thoughts, butchered by exes/cuckolded husbands

 

[RaptorWizard]

Haha I look in some random spoiler in SW's "Face-typist" post, and see that this person is typing random pop-diva-movie-superstars, and I was fairly turned on by the below so-called INFP picture (and I hope this particular ignoramous "moves spotlight away from RaptorWizard" did not mean INTP, and if this person did, I would as I have said in a past post before this one start farting lightning bolts and burping rainbows - because no way in Hell is the girl in the below picture an INTP; INFP could work though)!

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

Haha I look in some random spoiler in SW's "Face-typist" post, and see that this person is typing random pop-diva-movie-superstars, and I was fairly turned on by the below so-called INFP picture (and I hope this particular ignoramous "moves spotlight away from RaptorWizard" did not mean INTP, and if this person did, I would as I have said in a past post before this one start farting lightning bolts and burping rainbows - because no way in Hell is the girl in the below picture an INTP; INFP could work though)!

lol somehow I think this post will have the opposite effect. Though at least you posted it in this thread to save the need for SW to quote it.

 

[Jaguar]

she also says that she has no problem putting things over on people, which is the proof that she is a Thinker.

Lol. "Proof."