User Tag List

First 12

Results 11 to 18 of 18

  1. #11
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by funtensity View Post
    Modern academic psychology is not liberal arts. It's a hard science.
    Sure, academic psych nowadays is about e.g. empirical research. But there's no denying its roots in the liberal arts, which continues to influence the field because the sciencey part of psych is relatively new. See also: systems engineering. In that field, the scientific rigor didn't hit until about the middle of the last century.

    Even leaving the whole "liberal arts" thing aside .. ... academia is chock full of P types.

    I'm not going to make any progress getting this across, am I? No? I'll just stop here. I've said my piece.

  2. #12
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Something to be accepted in academic circles requires shit loads of proof for validity and reliability. To get that you need a funding, and getting enough funding for shit loads of MBTI research isnt easy. For an instrument to be chosen over another similar, requires more proofs and better history in the academic circles, and training on that instrument..
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    119

    Default

    Perhaps you're referencing Te users rather than J-types in general.

    The issue with psychology and academia is that psychology, while logical, has little application to society. It merely provides insight into human behavior on the basis of assumptions (depending on the field of psychology) and provides no actual solutions or tangible goals as to its implementation. This is particularly true of Jung's work.

    If it doesn't fix something, it's irrelevant.

    Ti/Fe types might see it as a logical (Ti) way to help people (Fe), but the Te/Fi nature of modern society strives mainly for moral/self-satisfying (Fi) ways to do/organize things (Te).

  4. #14
    The Typing Tabby grey_beard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by funtensity View Post
    Jung gave us a theory. Aside from correlating the MBTI with the Big 5, academia hasn't tested it. Why?

    Academia is an outward manifestation of the mind of the J types, which have extraverted judging functions in their dominant set. This especially includes INTJ and ENTJ types.

    Jung's work Psychological Types, on the other hand, is the outward manifestation of the P types, which have introverted judging functions in their dominant set. ISTP and INTP are particularly notable instances of this.

    Some may claim that Jung was an INTJ, but this is very non-obvious. Jung didn't build out his theory using Te. He created the simplest theory in his mind that explained as much variance in his patients as possible, and then wrote it down in a book. This compressed thinking is not the style of Te. To compress vast swaths of patient behaviors into a few cognitive functions is distinctly Ti or, perhaps (conceivably), Fi. It is not Te or Fe. Not one bit.

    Here I claim that for the most part, those with dominant extraverted judging functions have relatively little insight into the workings of their own minds, as compared to those with introverted judging functions. When a *NTJ reads Psychological Types, there isn't the same introspective resonation in their minds as is achieved with a *P type, such as INTP, ISTP, INFP, INFP, ENFP, etc.

    Thus, when a classic academic type reads Psychological Types, they tend to write it off as the workings of a crank. It is yet another theory that must be tested. They have no introspective mechanism with which to distinguish it from any of the other cognitive biases that might lead one to believe in astrology. They don't have that feeling that tells them holy shit, this is actually correct. It simply does not resonate with them in the same way. They don't get it. Their mind is tuned to things in the world, not to their representation in the mind, as it is in those with introverted judging functions.

    Academia = *J
    Stream of consciousness that compresses reality into an alternate basis which seems real: *P

    Discuss.
    I'd agree, except I'd first like to know how many INTJs are in academia -- with their Ni they'd glom onto MBTI, as I have.
    But -- knowing academia -- if it can't be rigorously quantified (whatever that means) then it won't be accepted:
    I have spoken with a psychotherapist (finishing their Master's Degree) who said that in clinical practice the MBTI is too
    unreliable, and should be backstopped with other tests, or used as an initial aid for the patient's self-discovery, to include
    discussing *why* they chose their answers in the questionnaire, and encouraging the patient to *push back* against
    their purported type assignment (both of these processes to be watched and evaluated by the professional practitioner of course).

    Your mileage may vary.
    "Love never needs time. But friendship always needs time. More and more and more time, up to long past midnight." -- The Crime of Captain Gahagan

    Please comment on my johari / nohari pages.

  5. #15
    The Typing Tabby grey_beard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by funtensity View Post
    Modern academic psychology is not liberal arts. It's a hard science.
    Nobel physicist Richard Feynman did not think so.
    "Love never needs time. But friendship always needs time. More and more and more time, up to long past midnight." -- The Crime of Captain Gahagan

    Please comment on my johari / nohari pages.

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    SeNi
    Enneagram
    8+7 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SeTi
    Posts
    940

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by funtensity View Post
    They do not have better frameworks for understanding "mind stuff" now. The MBTI / JCF is far more advanced than anything academic psychology has produced.
    ??? What do you base that opinion of yours on?


    Academia is still stuck with "theory of mind," which is an extremely shallow form of empathy that is tantamount to assuming that the other person's mind works like yours. And it is thus far incapable of creating composite descriptions of anything but terse length that explain substantial variance across people.
    Psychology is about a LOT more than "theory of mind". A lot more.

    I suggest you read up more on psychology.


    I also consider the description of academia as largely an outward manifestation of INTJ to be unimpeachable. *NTJs occupy a remarkable percentage of academics, and if you were to write a type description of academia it would essentially be that of INTJ, with some other types mixed in here and there for good, but not good enough, measure. And this kind of thinking can be pulled straight out of Psychological Types: Jung sought to reconcile Freud and Adler's theories, which he considered to be outward manifestations of E/I.
    Maybe, I don't know. INTJ as a type never made sense to me.

    But I still find it bad logic to "type" an institution or science!


    Quote Originally Posted by funtensity View Post
    Modern academic psychology is not liberal arts. It's a hard science.
    Now should I take that as a compliment? As I'd really like psychology to be more of a hard science and I'm kind of involved. Unfortunately most of psychology, yes academic psychology included isn't "hard" enough yet because we don't have good enough tools for research yet. There is improvement though.


    Quote Originally Posted by garbage View Post
    Sure, academic psych nowadays is about e.g. empirical research. But there's no denying its roots in the liberal arts, which continues to influence the field because the sciencey part of psych is relatively new. See also: systems engineering. In that field, the scientific rigor didn't hit until about the middle of the last century.

    Even leaving the whole "liberal arts" thing aside .. ... academia is chock full of P types.
    Yeah uh +1


    Quote Originally Posted by fghw View Post
    Perhaps you're referencing Te users rather than J-types in general.

    The issue with psychology and academia is that psychology, while logical, has little application to society. It merely provides insight into human behavior on the basis of assumptions (depending on the field of psychology) and provides no actual solutions or tangible goals as to its implementation. This is particularly true of Jung's work.

    If it doesn't fix something, it's irrelevant.
    Academic psychology doesn't care about solutions. That's applied psychology, that's something else (that does try to apply stuff for tangible goals). So that's not the issue.


    Ti/Fe types might see it as a logical (Ti) way to help people (Fe), but the Te/Fi nature of modern society strives mainly for moral/self-satisfying (Fi) ways to do/organize things (Te).
    :HEAD HURTS: (I want a head hurts smile! :P )

    This isn't Ti/Fe and Te/Fi, at all. Well unless you're happy to use MBTI as something that it was never meant to be.

  7. #17
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by funtensity View Post
    Jung gave us a theory. Aside from correlating the MBTI with the Big 5, academia hasn't tested it. Why?

    Academia is an outward manifestation of the mind of the J types, which have extraverted judging functions in their dominant set. This especially includes INTJ and ENTJ types.

    Jung's work Psychological Types, on the other hand, is the outward manifestation of the P types, which have introverted judging functions in their dominant set. ISTP and INTP are particularly notable instances of this.

    Some may claim that Jung was an INTJ, but this is very non-obvious. Jung didn't build out his theory using Te. He created the simplest theory in his mind that explained as much variance in his patients as possible, and then wrote it down in a book. This compressed thinking is not the style of Te. To compress vast swaths of patient behaviors into a few cognitive functions is distinctly Ti or, perhaps (conceivably), Fi. It is not Te or Fe. Not one bit.

    Here I claim that for the most part, those with dominant extraverted judging functions have relatively little insight into the workings of their own minds, as compared to those with introverted judging functions. When a *NTJ reads Psychological Types, there isn't the same introspective resonation in their minds as is achieved with a *P type, such as INTP, ISTP, INFP, INFP, ENFP, etc.

    Thus, when a classic academic type reads Psychological Types, they tend to write it off as the workings of a crank. It is yet another theory that must be tested. They have no introspective mechanism with which to distinguish it from any of the other cognitive biases that might lead one to believe in astrology. They don't have that feeling that tells them holy shit, this is actually correct. It simply does not resonate with them in the same way. They don't get it. Their mind is tuned to things in the world, not to their representation in the mind, as it is in those with introverted judging functions.

    Academia = *J
    Stream of consciousness that compresses reality into an alternate basis which seems real: *P

    Discuss.
    This is the biggest sack of shit "reasoning" I have ever read.

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    This is the biggest sack of shit "reasoning" I have ever read.
    Powerful visions, but utterly incapable of logically defending them. Truly, a zombie among us. A mere pawn of reality. Thus spake Zarathustra.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 68
    Last Post: 05-06-2017, 11:38 PM
  2. [MBTItm] Explanation of Sensing.
    By Angry Ayrab in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 08-06-2008, 09:39 PM
  3. [ESTP] why ESTP is rarely present, or even talked?
    By niki in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 05-04-2008, 09:57 AM
  4. Replies: 62
    Last Post: 01-17-2008, 07:32 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO