How NOT to do typology

[Society]

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.

to play a bit of DA...

Introverted Thinking often involves finding just the right word to clearly express an idea concisely, crisply, and to the point. - source

if you take it as true, then the expectation of others to have the right words can be considered Ti-bias.

that's a big if... go on google in icognito (so it doesn't match your past searches), and google any function in it's full name - that website will be the first entry - making it a very common way people learn about functions when they first see them. would you consider those descriptions folk typology?

 

[Mal12345]

Even I have a messy desk!

 

[Coriolis]

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

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!"?

I don't use the term myself, but understand what it means. For me it is an overall impression of someone's type that comes fully-formed, and is not the result of any deliberate analysis, consideration of functions, or enumeration of traits/behaviors/etc. I have always attributed it to Ni, working on the sum total of my experience with the person in question. I don't place much stock in these impressions, or at least prefer to cross-check them with more considered analysis, and usually don't share them unless specifically asked. I don't get impressions like this from everyone, only a small minority of people I meet, and I rarely have the opportunity to check their accuracy, so don't know their track record. It's a bit like navigating by rough sense of direction, rather than following a map and looking for specific streets. Sometimes it works, for some people.

 

[Tiltyred]

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.

I blame the behaviorists and the sweeping popularity of cognitive therapy.

 

[Tiltyred]

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.

I blame the behaviorists and the sweeping popularity of cognitive therapy.

 

[Anew Leaf]

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



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.





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.

Soo... would Jung be looking at us and then telling his therapist where we are touching him in the bad places by using a doll?

I guess I don't understand getting ones panties in a twist over something that isn't exact or accurate.

And I would like to again point out that you still haven't addressed my analysis of the quotes far above. Which leads me to the truth of this thread in that you are just going to cherry pick the bizarre berries that fulfill your crazy basket of crazy.

 

[Honor]

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".

Sweet.

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.

I addressed this in my post, namely discussing how some forms of empathy or interpersonal skills could be construed as intelligence and some cannot.

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.

You just argued in favor of what I was arguing for. The point is that some people and/or some types are more intelligent than others though the common definition of "intelligence" and the way society categorizes people into "intelligent" or "not" may be not accurate. However, people don't want to discuss it because it hurts their feelings, makes them question their value, and those categories may prevent people from "realizing their potential."

Also, many people do have measures of intelligence for their studies that are abundantly clear, and those definitions still "stir up negative feelings." So, (a) I think you're using 'We don't have a great definition of intelligence' as a cover-up for 'I don't want to separate people into 'intelligent' and 'not intelligent' because it will hurt people's feelings and prevent them from actualizing their potential which I agree that it will, (b) the argument isn't valid anyway because I could send you myriad studies that have clear definitions of intelligence, and (c) simply because a fact creates social problems doesn't mean that we can pretend it isn't true. I should warn you that obfuscating facts to make people feel better has been the cause of many social problems; I don't think it should be regarded as a proper method to solving them.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

would you consider those descriptions folk typology?

Absolutely, such descriptions have little to do with cognitive processes and focus on the supposed behavioral manifestations of functions. Finding the right word to clearly express a point is a skill that novelists, academic writers and journalists cultivate. Many of them will not use Introverted Thinking to do so as it is certainly possible to use other functions to obtain that capability.

 

[skylights]

[MENTION=16139]Honor[/MENTION]...

You are implying that I am in favor of covering up people's "lack of intelligence" to make them feel better.

I am arguing that "intelligence" is a non-existent catch-all construct, and it is therefore pointless to link it to self-worth.

 

[Honor]

[MENTION=16139]Honor[/MENTION]...

You are implying that I am in favor of covering up people's "lack of intelligence" to make them feel better.

I am arguing that "intelligence" is a non-existent catch-all construct, and it is therefore pointless to link it to self-worth.

Sorry if I misunderstood what you were arguing, but it really seemed to me that was what you were arguing for. I agree with you that it is pointless to link it to self-worth...and I'd also agree with you that people use it as a catch-all, but I think as long as you ignore the common definition, it can be a useful concept. *shrug*

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Soo... would Jung be looking at us and then telling his therapist where we are touching him in the bad places by using a doll?

You sure have a way with peculiar figurative expressions that border on incomprehensibility.

I guess I don't understand getting ones panties in a twist over something that isn't exact or accurate.

Yeah, you're right. It's not exact science, so why bother thinking about it. Let's just say all non-scientific statements are equally acceptable and leave it at that, okay?

And I would like to again point out that you still haven't addressed my analysis of the quotes far above.

I didn't see an analysis, what do you want me to respond to?

Which leads me to the truth of this thread in that you are just going to cherry pick the bizarre berries that fulfill your crazy basket of crazy.

Easy, you're making my head spin already.

 

[RaptorWizard]

Hey guys I think David Keirsey is completely awesome, because he makes some types like Inventors and Masterminds sounds far superior to other types such as Supervisors and Providers!

Some people were just born better and more awesome than others, and those with less special dazzle to their personalities can suck it!

Good, better, best. Never let it rest. Until your good is better, and your better is best. -Tim Duncam (Wait, we're born with our types, so why in hell can some people 'get better' if they are programmed from their genesis as dwarfs!?)

 

[skylights]

Sorry if I misunderstood what you were arguing, but it really seemed to me that was what you were arguing for. I agree with you that it is pointless to link it to self-worth...and I'd also agree with you that people use it as a catch-all, but I think as long as you ignore the common definition, it can be a useful concept. *shrug*

I agree. The question of whose definition do you choose, and why, is still awkward... I think that psychometrics has taken up the variable "g" to indicate an overall intelligence measure... Part of me hopes the whole construct will be dropped in favor of more scientific, less self-worth-related measures. At least personally I doubt the existence of a single factor that will determine overall success in all areas of life, much less one that is type-related.

 

[Honor]

I agree. The question of whose definition do you choose, and why, is still awkward... I think that psychometrics has taken up the variable "g" to indicate an overall intelligence measure... Part of me hopes the whole construct will be dropped in favor of more scientific, less self-worth-related measures. At least personally I doubt the existence of a single factor that will determine overall success in all areas of life, much less one that is type-related.

Mmm, I don't know, I think certain types do have an advantage. I don't think anyone factor is deterministic, but certainly, I think it's advantageous in capitalism to be a J, for example. Also, I don't really know what you mean by "more scientific, less self-worth related" because I've never seen a study that's determined someone's intelligence by how they've described their self-worth.

 

[citizen cane]

Yeah, you're right. It's not exact science, so why bother thinking about it. Let's just say all non-scientific statements are equally acceptable and leave it at that, okay?

You seem to be saying that typology either must be studied with a sort of originalist perspective to the degree that you yourself wish to study it or is not worth being studied at all, and then belittling others who disagree with this. You, sir, ought to win an award for your astonishing unwillingness or inability to view Typology as anything other than a field that only expounds upon original works- a field that doesn't challenge assumptions, opinions, or observations, and never needs to take a retrospective look at itself. That seems quite silly if you ask me.

 

[skylights]

Mmm, I don't know, I think certain types do have an advantage. I don't think anyone factor is deterministic, but certainly, I think it's advantageous in capitalism to be a J, for example. Also, I don't really know what you mean by "more scientific, less self-worth related" because I've never seen a study that's determined someone's intelligence by how they've described their self-worth.

Oh, I mean the other way around, like how the public generally takes "smarter" to be "better". Perhaps it means more able, but better is a subjective, personally-determined value thing. Like let's say you are looking at partners... do you want a partner who is smart? Yes, of course, the vast majority does. But do you want a partner who is good at math? Well, you might not care, really. That sort of thing. The idea that "intelligence" is particularly linked to being "better" in general, while many other variables that are part of what we generally consider intelligence come out being less linked to worth when they are isolated.

I do agree of course that Js probably have an advantage in capitalistic systems... I think Ss have it better in basically any situation that requires being observant... Ts of course are better when dealing with rigid logic systems... and so on...

It just bothers me how much crossover there is between classification, like typology, and individual worth. It seems to me we should start out assuming that all people have worth because they are humans too, and take it from there.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

You seem to be saying that typology either must be studied with a sort of originality perspective or is not worth being studied at all, and then belittling others who disagree with this. You, sir, seem to be the intellectually boxed-in inferior in this discussion.

No, I said that the problem with modern typology is not that it deviates from Jung's writings but that it lacks the rigor and intellectual discipline of their predecessor's works.

 

[RaptorWizard]

O gosh, all these gay INTP super-genius uber-epic almighty-Architects of everything are the most freaking annoying people in existence!

They think that they're like the smartest people in the world, can build all these amazing systems, and design the master blueprints for the ignorant slaves to render.

If you question their incredibly complex and boring logic, they will annihilate you with the most powerfully devestating arguments conceivable, leaving you crying your brains out for a week!

And worst of all, they have no respect whatsoever for upholding the sacred traditions of society or putting on the right face to please people.

They truly are the most despicable creatures in all of Typology. It's pathetic really, watching them all worship at the alter of Kerisey and chanting his antichrist bible!

 

[Nicki]

Just don't do it

 

[Mal12345]

O gosh, all these gay INTP super-genius uber-epic almighty-Architects of everything are the most freaking annoying people in existence!

They think that they're like the smartest people in the world, can build all these amazing systems, and design the master blueprints for the ignorant slaves to render.

If you question their incredibly complex and boring logic, they will annihilate you with the most powerfully devestating arguments conceivable, leaving you crying your brains out for a week!

And worst of all, they have no respect whatsoever for upholding the sacred traditions of society or putting on the right face to please people.

They truly are the most despicable creatures in all of Typology. It's pathetic really, watching them all worship at the alter of Kerisey and chanting his antichrist bible!

I'd rather be the master-mind type. Fuck Keirsey!