User Tag List

First 56789 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 95

Thread: Common Folkways

  1. #61
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,545

    Default

    It's probably important to say that typology is not MBTI.

    Typology is a classification according to general type. You have typology of archaeology, literature, geology, psychology and other social sciences.

    Typology is used here as shorthand for MBTI. This is called special pleading.

    And MBTI needs special pleading because it cannot stand on its own two feet.

    We should realise we are lucky to belong to a site with such a general heading that allows the discussion of almost anything.

  2. #62
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    They should influence a person's behavior, however, exactly how they do is not obvious. We need more information than just a person's cognitive tendencies to understand their behavior which is why typology alone is insufficient to predict how a person will behave in the future.

    The insights about human behavior it offers are too vague. People have reasons other than their natural tendencies to behave in a way that they do and anyone who predicts behavior on the basis of type alone altogether ignores that.

    It may help you understand something about them, but merely attributing all of their behaviors to their type is a mistake. It is an error of ignoring the possibility that their behaviors could have been influenced by factors other than their natural cognitive dispositions.

    I believe I said that it is nearly worthless rather than worthless altogether.
    Thank you for clarifying.

    Agree on all points (except for one). As much as I'm in awe of your insights and writing on this topic, I must disagree with the "nearly worthless" point. I can point to no evidence other than the fact that it has been invaluable to me personally as an imperfect, flawed, incomplete, but extraordinary useful set of data points in attempting to understand others. Yes, it is vague but then I'm quite comfortable with vague.

    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639

  3. #63
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    You missed the point. A good hypothesis is one that is highly like to be corroborated by empirical evidence. If all non-empirical data was subjective or arbitary, there would be no difference between a plausible and an implausible hypothesis.
    And how do you determine what is or is not highly likely to be corroborated by empirical evidence without actually having any empirical evidence in the first place?

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    It necessitates that he will find it irrelevant to his professional discipline just as modern psychologists deemed Jung's work impertinent. Did you ever get a BA? Your reading comprehension is terrible.
    But you didn't say "irrelevant to his professional discipline" and neither did I. I said that most of psychology academia finds Jung's work implausible, not just irrelevant to his professional discipline. Jung's ideas on cognition represent only his subjective interpretations of it, not indisputable fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Have them advance their arguments, then we can see which is more plausible.
    It's fortunate that we have someone as qualified as you to determine objectively for us what is factually plausible and implausible.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Then it is worthless by definition.
    All subjective ideas are worthless now? And this is coming from a philosophy major?

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    I was a philosophy major. None of the arguments are subjective or relevant to perspective. They are all true or false by definition. At first they are recognized as plausible or implausible on the basis of their logical consistency and known empirical facts about the world. Objective arguments are ones that are consistent and based on reasonable premises, subjective arguments are basically non-sense. They are either inconsistent or founded on misguided premises. Next time restrict your comments about what you know next to nothing about to a minimum.
    The reasoning processes leading from a set of premises to its conclusion are not subjective--the premises themselves are. You assume Jung's premises to be factually accurate, indisputable representations of the process of cognition, which they clearly are not.

    Pick any philosophical topic you want and you'll find informed philosophers taking opposing positions because they start from different premises. This clearly introduces a degree of subjectivity to philosophy, or else there would be no dispute about any philosophical topic between any two people knowledgeable in the field.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Non-sense. The work of astronomers, psychologists and even natural scientists was addressed by philosophers first. Aristotle was arguably the first philosopher to publish on all of those subjects. Eventually, scholars found empirical ways of studying those subjects and they became their own disciplines rather than just part of philosophy.
    Yes, but philosophical topics are still philosophical (and therefore subjective in nature) because science hasn't yet found a way to empirically prove any position superior to any other. When science advances its understanding of cognition far enough, it may turn out that Jung's ideas were totally inaccurate. There's no way of knowing that without a complete scientific understanding of the subject, so there's still room for subjective disagreement about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    No, some premises are founded on nearly indubitable notions about the world, yet others are very speculative.
    Yes, and you've made a mistake by assuming that Jung's premises about the relationships between cognitive processes are "nearly indubitable." There's a significant amount of subjective interpretation on his part (and yours) here.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Improve your reading comprehension and you'll see what this way of 'proving veracity of premises' is.
    I've read and grasped what you said quite clearly--I think the solution here is for you to break out of your perceptual box a little bit and recognize that Jung's ideas about cognition don't represent "nearly indubitable" fact, and that your ideas on this topic are still subject to the biases of your own interpretations.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Not completely invalid, but it has deep flaws. I am not explaining what they are again. Read the essay on typology as a philosophical discipline.
    I'm aware of the limitations, but that doesn't mean I find the idea entirely useless.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    That happens rarely and mostly when the study is guided by professional counsellors. In most folk conversations about the subject, its a waste of time.
    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Because it is a fast and easy way to characterize people and generate gossip.
    Characterizing people can aid us in understanding the perspectives from which they approach life and interaction with others. Your own inability to improve your interactions with others through this practice does not constitute evidence that no one garners any legitimate use from it.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    You know nothing of my motives and merely assume that it is a result of a bias because you lack the reasoning aptitude and the reading comprehension to understand the supporting rationale behind it.
    Listen, the fact that I don't buy your insistence that your premises represent indubitable fact doesn't mean I didn't grasp what you were saying--it just means you need to reevaluate your idea of what represents indubitable fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Jung observed the relevant cognitive behaviors, not the common-place behaviors that the modern MBTI writers observe.
    He observed cognitive tendencies only through observation of the behaviors of others and subjective inference as to the nature of their cognition.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    They should influence a person's behavior, however, exactly how they do is not obvious. We need more information than just a person's cognitive tendencies to understand their behavior which is why typology alone is insufficient to predict how a person will behave in the future.
    The insights about human behavior it offers are too vague. People have reasons other than their natural tendencies to behave in a way that they do and anyone who predicts behavior on the basis of type alone altogether ignores that.
    Obviously type alone doesn't produce a complete picture, but it helps us eliminate a lot of possibilities and narrow down the probable motivations and behavior sets in others more quickly than we might otherwise be able to.

    Sometimes we make mistakes in this regard, and the more we get to know a person the less useful knowledge of his type becomes to us, but for those of us in the habit of actually meeting and interacting with new people periodically (evidently unlike yourself), it's quite helpful for picking out general behavioral patterns and tendencies, even if it's not always accurate.

    If it's accurate more often than not in predicting behavioral patterns and attitudes with new acquaintances (which in my experience, it certainly has been), then it has some utility.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    It may help you understand something about them, but merely attributing all of their behaviors to their type is a mistake. It is an error of ignoring the possibility that their behaviors could have been influenced by factors other than their natural cognitive dispositions.
    Why do you assume that folk typologists ascribe 100% of someone's behavior to his type? As long as folk typology helps to understand more about someone than you otherwise would have, it has some utility.


    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    I believe I said that it is nearly worthless rather than worthless altogether.
    Perhaps you should get a little more practice in meeting/interacting with new people and using "folk typology" to predict their behaviors and attitudes before you declare it "nearly worthless." Recognize that your own inability to find significant utility in it doesn't necessitate that that is the case for everyone.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    The indubitable fact is that these cognitive faculties exist, however, Jung's definition of them should be questioned.
    So Jung's interpretations of cognition do not actually constitute indubitable fact? That's interesting, because it introduces a degree of subjectivity into both his ideas on typology and yours--if you want to continue erroneously believing your own perspective to be above the confines of subjective perceptual error, then be my guest, but don't expect anyone to take you very seriously.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  4. #64
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    And how do you determine what is or is not highly likely to be corroborated by empirical evidence without actually having any empirical evidence in the first place?.
    As a general rule, logically consistent arguments founded on uncontroversial premises are more likely to be corroborated than those that are not.



    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    But you didn't say "irrelevant to his professional discipline"and neither did I. I said that most of psychology academia finds Jung's work implausible, not just irrelevant to his professional discipline. Jung's ideas on cognition represent only his subjective interpretations of it, not indisputable fact.?.
    Professional psychologists tend not to be interested in researching the nature of cognitive habits. The core of Jung's typology is rooted in that, thus, contemporary psychologists had little or nothing to say about that. I'd be surprised if you could cite a single article to the contrary.

    I would not be surprised if they refuted the very few claims Jung made about human behavior and motivations. Such as for example, how animus projection causes people to fall in love. That stuff is complete rubbish and irrelevant to his significant work in the study of temperament. At any rate, the criticisms of modern psychology don't threaten the Jungian foundations of typology as a serious scholarly discipline.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    All subjective ideas are worthless now? And this is coming from a philosophy major?.?.
    I think now I have figured out what the hell you meant by 'subjective'! By your lights a subjective notion is one that is not obviously factual. Hence, if there is any room for debate or disagreement regarding the verity of a certain idea, it is to some degree subjective. That is a very unorthodox and a confusing definition.



    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    The reasoning processes leading from a set of premises to its conclusion are not subjective--the premises themselves are.?.?.
    Under your definition of subjective, in many cases, to some degree they are.


    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    You assume Jung's premises to be factually accurate, indisputable representations of the process of cognition, which they clearly are not..?.?.
    Where did I do that?

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Pick any philosophical topic you want and you'll find informed philosophers taking opposing positions because they start from different premises. This clearly introduces a degree of subjectivity to philosophy, or else there would be no dispute about any philosophical topic between any two people knowledgeable in the field...?.?.
    Under your definition of the term, the 'subjectivity' of philosophical conclusions is merely a trivial point. The same is to be said for all typological notions as they are philosophical in nature, as I've argued before. Just because none of them are indisputable, it does not follow that some arguments aren't better or more plausible than others.


    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    When science advances its understanding of cognition far enough, it may turn out that Jung's ideas were totally inaccurate.
    Really, it will be shown that there is no such thing as abstract perception, use of senses, conscious perception of structure or emoting?


    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Yes, and you've made a mistake by assuming that Jung's premises about the relationships between cognitive processes are "nearly indubitable..
    Where did I make that assumption?




    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    I've read and grasped what you said quite clearly-..
    You need to try harder. You consistently misinterpret my position.



    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    I'm aware of the limitations, but that doesn't mean I find the idea entirely useless. -..
    I don't find it entirely useless either, yet the limitations are far more significant than most MBTI enthusiasts are willing to admit.




    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Characterizing people can aid us in understanding the perspectives from which they approach life and interaction with others.-..
    Only if the characterizations are somewhat accurate at least.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Your own inability to improve your interactions with others through this practice does not constitute evidence that no one garners any legitimate use from it..-..
    You've only inferred that from my type as you know nothing of my life. That's a very good example of non-useful MBTI based characterizations about other people.





    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    If it's accurate more often than not in predicting behavioral patterns and attitudes with new acquaintances (which in my experience, it certainly has been), then it has some utility...-..
    For example?



    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    If Why do you assume that folk typologists ascribe 100% of someone's behavior to his type?...-..
    It happens very often. In fact, you concluded that I don't meet a lot of people only because INTP is my type. You could not have concluded that on any other basis as you know nothing else about my life. Besides, it is the official doctrine anyways. Keirsey's book sends the message loudly and clearly. An INTP is a quiet and a reflective person, an NT is an intelligent person, a J is an organized person. He even described how children of each type will behave in many possible situations. Keirsey starts with the sole premise that a person has an X type and concludes with the assertion that he will behave in a Y way. Extratypological factors are not even considered anywhere in either of the two volumes of his work. This noxious doctrine has been pervasive on this board as many members start threads in the relationship boards seeking advice on how to deal with other people while providing scarcely more information about them than their type alone.


    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    As long as folk typology helps to understand more about someone than you otherwise would have, it has some utility.?...-..
    It creates more confusions, inconsistent character analysis and altogether an inaccurate picture of human nature.




    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Perhaps you should get a little more practice in meeting/interacting with new people and using "folk typology" to predict their behaviors and attitudes before you declare it "nearly worthless.".?...-..
    Okay, I predict that you are not going to respond to this post because you're an ENTP. As an ENTP your attention span is short, so you won't read it. Type is very instrumental in predicting the behavior of people, hence this is how you will react to my posts under almost all circumstances. So, I will assume that this is how you will behave regardless of whether or not you are ill, well, depressed, working 80 hours a week, isolated or hosting homosexual orgies every night.

    But then again, another ENTP profile says ENTPs are very inventive and dedicated project builders! Maybe you will respond with something overly imaginative and abstract to the point of incomprehensibility. Goddamnit! You're an ENTP, it is inscribed across your forehead, an immutable quality of yours that makes you an inventor. Hell, you will always be creative in every situation even if you're starving in a desert or terrorists are holding a gun to your forehead.

    Predicting behaviors is extremely difficult. Even the Big Five model which is recognized as the most accurate of all personality systems has struggled in this respect. How a person behaves has a lot to do with their external circumstances and internal variables. For example, a person's job, income, relationship status, personal interests have a great deal to do with how he will behave at a later point. Similarly, his internal condition such as moods, mental health, physical health and so on also have a lot to do with the choices he shall make in life. If you know only the core personality qualities of theirs, you're unlikely to make accurate predictions. Even if MBTI was a good personality theory, which by any means it is not, it still would not suffice as an adequate predictor of behaviors. Its not a good theory because it attributes too many vague and mutually incompatible characteristics to a single personality type. I could write thousands of words illustrating examples of this phenomena, but I shall spare you the headaches. Generally, MBTI enthusiasts avoid this problem by extracting the consistent set of qualities from profile descriptions, yet ignore the palpable contradictions and antinomies. For more information on internal inconsistencies of MBTI, see my essay 'Typology as a Philosophical discipline'. http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...iscipline.html

    For the meantime, I suggest that if you truly believe that in many cases when you think you're using MBTI to accurately predict human behaviors, you're unconsciously engaging in a confirmation bias or perceiving illustory structure and patterns without knowing that you are. This does not mean that you can never make an accurate prediction of a person's behavior on a basis of their MBTI stereotypical traits, yet you won't manage to do so, 70,80 or 90% of the time. I'd be astounded if anyone could do so 50% of the time in a typical non-controlled environment.
    Last edited by SolitaryWalker; 02-24-2010 at 06:04 PM.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  5. #65

    Default

    I love this thread. *big-eyed*
    Call me Visa, please!
    visakanv.com
    visaisahero.tumblr.com

  6. #66
    Was E.laur Laurie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Socionics
    ENFp
    Posts
    6,075

    Default

    I was wondering how I got subscribed to a thread by solitary walker named "common folkways."

    The staff has it out for me again.

  7. #67
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    SW, what do you mean when you say that existence is not a predicate?
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  8. #68
    Once Was Synarch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    8,470

    Default

    I appreciate SolitaryWalker's original beef. That is that it's foolish to come here looking for a community of serious discussion. True enough. I don't understand why people see him as high-handed, etc. It is true. Most of the discussion here is frivolous. But, some people like that more. And some people also like to think of themselves as serious-minded when they're not. (I probably fall into this category)

    In defense of SolitaryWalker, he consistently expresses real ideas and appears consistent. This is beyond reproach. Who cares if he's not interested in making people feel better or being politic? He adheres to his own standards due to his respect for the subject. What is wrong with that?
    "Create like a god, command like a king, work like a slave."

  9. #69
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,124

    Default

    ^ when he insists on going way off topic and f%^&ing up your thread

    I could have dealt with an appology
    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

  10. #70
    Once Was Synarch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    8,470

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    ^ when he insists on going way off topic and f%^&ing up your thread

    I could have dealt with an appology
    Who decides what is off topic? Perhaps the connections are not always apparent.
    "Create like a god, command like a king, work like a slave."

Similar Threads

  1. [NF] Commonalities/differences between ENFP and ENFJ
    By proteanmix in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 09-23-2015, 02:35 PM
  2. Common sense - what is it and who has it?
    By JivinJeffJones in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 85
    Last Post: 06-02-2009, 12:21 AM
  3. [INFP] Common for other INFPs?
    By sleep in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 12-05-2008, 10:48 PM
  4. Suggestions for new fines, charges and other changes for the sake of common sense.
    By Xander in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 10-24-2008, 06:35 AM
  5. Commonly abused logical Fallacies..
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 05-27-2007, 05:54 PM

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