How NOT to do typology

[SolitaryWalker]

That's uh lot uf words to basically say that *gasp* practice makes perfect... eventually, etc.

No, that's just dumbing it down. If practice made perfect, patzers playing thousands of games on random chess sites would have been masters by now. Players who constantly analyze their games and integrate theoretical insights into their play are the ones who tend to improve the most.

Also have a bunch of amateurs

I appreciate your aggressive argumentative energy and polemical zeal, but I am afraid you're oversimplifying the situation. While almost nobody on this forum makes a living by studying typology full-time and is clearly an expert on this subject, not everybody is a neophyte either.

make passive aggressive guesses in a thread where no real forward thinking is activated seems like a verbal.

That's not true, most posters who cite abuses of typology tend to point out the author's initial error and recommend a stronger line of argument.

 

[Anew Leaf]

That's not true, most posters who cite abuses of typology tend to point out the author's initial error and recommend a stronger line of argument.

Provide examples to shore up the defensive walls of your Camelot of Win.

For my side I provide: the forum at large in all of its quivering jello ways and saucy sundry moments.

 

[Anew Leaf]

Actually scratch that. I think we need to have a concise and precise definition of "abuse of typology" in all of its various demon forms. The better to provide the forum and its users with appropriate exorcisms as needed.

Constantine, where are thee now?

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Provide examples to shore up the defensive walls of your Camelot of Win.

For my side I provide: the forum at large in all of its quivering jello ways and saucy sundry moments.

Not sure what you've just said, but I don't have time to go back and forth with you. If you want examples of how people provided superior methods of argument to the abuses of typology you've cited, they're all over this thread.

 

[Anew Leaf]

Not sure what you've just said, but I don't have time to go back and forth with you. If you want examples of how people provided superior methods of argument to the abuses of typology you've cited, they're all over this thread.

Ah yes, I see what you mean right here:

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60845&page=3&p=2130410#post2130410

This one is possibly the Greatest Post Of All Time In This Thread.

so, your thoughts on this, dare I say? Genius' ideas?

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Actually scratch that. I think we need to have a concise and precise definition of "abuse of typology" in all of its various demon forms. The better to provide the forum and its users with appropriate exorcisms as needed.

The initial framework for that has already been provided in the OP and supplemented by my recent post on Kerseyism.

Constantine, where are thee now?

You won't build Rome in a day, a concise and a precise definition of abuses of typology is the end-result of this inquiry, we're at least a few dozen posts away from that.

 

[Anew Leaf]

The initial framework for that has already been provided in the OP and supplemented by my recent post on Kerseyism.



You won't build Rome in a day, a concise and a precise definition of abuses of typology is the end-result of this inquiry, we're at least a few dozen posts away from that.

Well, I am not quite sure that typology is the same to Rome as cheese is to the moon, but for the sake of this moment... I am with you, man. let's fight the power together.

Perhaps since I am a recent convert you could answer my questions up above for they were not satisfactorily covered in the small OP of this here thread.

 

[Rasofy]

We're getting around to it.

Somehow I doubt that. It has been more than 6 months already.

You should acknowledge the fact that you've been using this thread to feed a (false) sense of superiority and learn something with the experience.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Somehow I doubt that. It has been more than 6 months already.

What's the rush? Let everyone make their contributions and then we will analyze the input in our concluding assessments.

You should acknowledge the fact that you've been using this thread to feed a (false) sense of superiority and learn something with the experience.

I don't know if that's a fact, but I appreciate your attempt to psychologize my motives. Please carry on, the value of your incisive critiques can never be underestimated.

Perhaps since I am a recent convert you could answer my questions up above for they were not satisfactorily covered in the small OP of this here thread.

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.

 

[Rasofy]

I don't know if that's a fact, but I appreciate your attempt to psychologize my motives. Please carry on, the value of your incisive critiques can never be underestimated.

As you wish.

Based on what I've gathered in this thread, you're basically a failed author who believes his work is superior to Isabel Myers' and Keirsey's.

Correct so far?

So when observers watch the failed author criticizing the work of the accomplished authors without giving them any merits whatsoever, what can they usually conclude about the motivations behind it?

Then you begin to see yourself as the word of Jung, while all the other typology attempts are regarded as 'folk typology'.

Tsk tsk.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

As you wish.

Based on what I've gathered in this thread, you're basically a failed author who believes his work is superior to Isabel Myers' and Keirsey's.

Incorrect, the comparison between myself and these two authors is illegitimate. I am writing in the Jungian tradition, they're writing in the tradition of modern popular psychology. Our objectives are entirely different, I did not intend to sell as many books as possible by simplifying typology in a manner they did. For what it's worth, Principles of Typology sells a few copies each quarter and my readers take an altogether different approach to typology than the acolytes of Keirsey and Briggs.

So when observers watch the failed author

My only intention was to write a book on theoretical typology for a very narrow audience of readers who are dissatisfied with the "folk typology". In that respect, I have succeeded, but the book definitely needs to be re-written because it hasn't even been proof-read, let alone comprehensively edited. In short, it is a very rough draft and a work in progress to start a meaningful conversation on typology, the project has just begun and is far from failure. If you want to define success in salesman's terms of "volume, volume, volume"and enjoy your Keirsey, be my guest.

As criticizing the work of the accomplished authors (and people influenced by them) without giving them any merits whatsoever,

Sure they have merits, after all who would ever say that Dr. Phil's books are completely worthless? It's just that we need to grow out of their immature theoretical frameworks if we cherish any hopes of gaining a meaningful understanding of typology.

what can they usually conclude about the motivations behind it?

My dear illustrious friend, you may conclude whatever you want, I trust that what you'll come up with will be nothing short of profoundly illuminating.

 

[Rasofy]

you're good.

 

[Nicodemus]

[...] if we cherish any hopes of gaining a meaningful understanding of typology.

What is typology? Did Jung invent it? If not, why is it wrong to deviate from his ideas?

 

[SolitaryWalker]

What is typology?

Jung coined the term of "psychological types" which is the endeavor of differentiating between personalities based on their underlying traits of temperament. Jung's work is meritorious because it is founded on a coherent theoretical framework and analysis of temperaments is not easily influenced by observations of superficial or highly visible behavioral traits. Most modern publications on typology do not even pretend to be intellectually respectable, they were meant to be popularized and lucrative in the market-place. These are the ideas that form the basis of typological discourse on this forum, as pleasant and easy to work with they may be, they are crude distortions of the cognitive tendencies that Jung wrote about.

Strictly speaking, Jung did invent typology as we know it, modern popularizing writers did not so much deviate from it, but rather distorted it.

 

[Nicodemus]

Strictly speaking, Jung did invent typology as we know it, modern popularizing writers did not so much deviate from it, but rather distorted it.

Does that mean there can never be typology without reference and adherence to Jung's work? If that is so, should we perhaps begin to regard typology as a literary endeavor, like theology, 'Psychologische Typen' as its Bible?

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Does that mean there can never be typology without reference and adherence to Jung's work?

Sure there can be, there is the Enneagram and the Big Five. Jung's theoretical framework is just one method of doing typology, however, if we are going to reference his terms and ideas, there is little sense in radically deviating from his theories. If we're going to do that, we might as well sever all ties with Jung and start our own system of temperaments. However, my problem with the modern distortions of Jung's work is not so much that they are disloyal to their founding paradigm but that they're becoming less rigorous with each new system. Who could argue that Keirsey is less rigorous than Briggs? Soon enough, typology will degenerate into a balderdash that we'll scarcely recognize, it will soon be on the level of mere superstitions such as parapsychology and tarot card reading.

 

[skylights]

Defining intelligence is difficult, a point you brought up before and a good one. When I speak about intelligence, I'm not necessarily talking about IQ as a measure of intelligence, although I don't believe that a good IQ test is entirely useless. Off the cuff, I'd say that one's capacity for high-level analysis, reasoning, and perhaps one's memory might be attributes of intelligence.

You might say that the definition is skewed toward NTs and suggest that NFs display an equal amount of intelligence although a different kind. In response to that, I'd say that I think all types have something equally valuable to bring to the table, but I am not sure if empathy, or interpersonal skills, really count as "intelligence." I can't also say that they don't count as a form of intelligence because some people do use high-level reasoning, analysis, and whatever else intelligence is to understand and respond to others. But in my observation, many people who relate well to the masses and are skilled interpersonally do not have a very high capacity for analysis, reasoning, etc. Most importantly, I'd like to point out that even by my original definition, I don't think every F would score lower than every T. Simply being a T doesn't mean you have developed your capacity to reason further than an F, though you may have been more predisposed to do so.

As for which types might be among the more intelligent, I do have some ideas about who they might be, but I wouldn't say on the forum because people get reactive over stuff like that and then, start insane arguments.

See my problem is, ok, you've mentioned "high-level analysis, reasoning, and [...] memory" as attributes of intelligence. That all sounds reasonable to me considering a common concept of "intelligence". At the same time, why is empathy not included in that measure? After all, empathy is linked to mirror neurons and ability to recreate another person's state of being, which is certainly a sort of analysis and reasoning in and of itself. So what is it, exactly, that intelligence measures?

Until we have a definition of "intelligence" that is abundantly clear about what exactly it is a measurement of, and what it is not a measurement of, people will continue conflating it with self-worth and individual value, and in that sense it will only serve to obfuscate actual ability and stir up negative feelings. I am not one to follow "political correctness" either, but I find "intelligence" a useless concept at the moment - and a dangerous one, as we even sort children into being "gifted" or not. It is my opinion that this sort of testing and analysis - which we know will never be perfect - is far more likely to hamper people who have undiscovered talents than it is to benefit society by pushing the "gifted" forward, especially as those "gifted" students have an overwhelming tendency to be affluent white children raised in stable homes with abundant resources.

In other words, I don't think the concept of intelligence is being used in an objective or constructive way. I think it's poorly defined, conflated into individual worth, poorly tested for, and mired in sociocultural prejudices. There is little benefit to be had in applying it to typology.

 

[Society]

while we're talking about faulty typology... can someone please explain to me "vibe"?

you don't vibe like a 2

you vibe more like a head type

i'm getting more of a Ti vibe from you

this has being a particular annoyance for me in regards to enneagram (somewhat rarer but still in use in regards to MBTI)... wtf does it mean? "i associate you with person A & B which were type X"? "i don't have the words to explain this"? is this the adult-acceptable form of "because!"?

 

[SolitaryWalker]

while we're talking about faulty typology... can someone please explain to me "vibe"?

Modern folk typology is far too rigorous for some of our forum users, so they want to take it down another notch. Instead of placing people into neat and simplistic boxes based on observations of superficial, highly visible behaviors, they want to type them on fleeting whim.

 

[Anew Leaf]

Modern folk typology is far too rigorous for some of our forum users, so they want to take it down another notch. Instead of placing people into neat and simplistic boxes based on observations of superficial, highly visible behaviors, they want to type them on fleeting whim.

I didn't realize signing up here was akin to applying to the Harvard of typology.