Mistyped TypeCentral Members

[Cellmold]

[MENTION=10315]Aquarelle[/MENTION]

The original book on MBTI, Gifts Differing, actually uses cognitive functions. Although I always wonder if people differentiate between the functions of MBTI and the functions of Jung.

 

[Anew Leaf]

One person asked to be typed and then people typed him according to their understanding of MBTI/function theory. Nobody claimed to have the absolute truth. Nobody insulted or disrespected him.

Just because there are multiple interpretations of a theory doesn't mean someone cannot believe in one of them, and act on that basis. So long as they don't falsely claim it is hard proven science, what's the issue?

If the person was to get upset about it then would he ask to be typed?

I read the last few pages and don't understand why this turned into a big issue.

That's pretty much the summation.

Some people ask questions to get new information and others ask questions to confirm what they already believe to be true.

 

[Aquarelle]

[MENTION=10315]Aquarelle[/MENTION]

The original book on MBTI, Gifts Differing, actually uses cognitive functions. Although I always wonder if people differentiate between the functions of MBTI and the functions of Jung.

Yeah, I know MBTI is based on Jung, so perhaps calling the two different "schools of thought" is an exaggeration--I suppose MBTI is more of an interpretation, and intermediary, so to speak. What I like about MBTI is that it is more concrete than Jung, which I suppose has its advantages and disadvantages. I have no doubt that going straight to Jung is more "advanced" typology, and I do realize that certified MBTI practitioners do go back to the root, but I am not a certified MBTI practitioner, so I tend to rely on the experts who have sort of interpreted Jung's theories and go from there. Hence why I usually stay out of these types of conversations. However, in this circumstance, I have a direct advantage in that I know Lark better than anyone else in the conversation. So I was simply trying to bring in a different perspective, a different side of him, that I think most people just don't see.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

I would think that it's just a different Psychological approach.

JCF - Cognitive /herp

Myer-Briggs - Behavioral (Or is this Kiersey? If it's him then screw all y'all).

We have those people that find the first unnecessarily complex, and still others that find the second numbingly simple.

But if we view them as different approaches we can then see that you are able to be more than one type, because the discrepancy between how people act from what thought that provoked them to act can appear disjointed.

 

[Cellmold]

I would think that it's just a different Psychological approach.

JCF - Cognitive /herp

Myer-Briggs - Behavioral (Or is this Kiersey? If it's him then screw all y'all).

We have those people that find the first unnecessarily complex, and still others that find the second numbingly simple.

But if we view them as different approaches we can then see that you are able to be more than one type, because the discrepancy between how people act from what thought that provoked them to act can appear disjointed.

I think keirsey is more behavioural than either. But MBTI might have some of that to it as well, ill have to check up with the books again.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

I think keirsey is more behavioural than either. But MBTI might have some of that to it as well, ill have to check up with the books again.

Apparently it is the bridge between the 2 I mentioned.... Maybe it was just poorly built.

 

[violet_crown]

However, in this circumstance, I have a direct advantage in that I know Lark better than anyone else in the conversation. So I was simply trying to bring in a different perspective, a different side of him, that I think most people just don't see.

That "advantage" is mooted if your theoretical understanding is too limited to accurately describe your observations.

 

[Aquarelle]

That "advantage" is mooted if your theoretical understanding is too limited to accurately describe your observations.

Hmm, I don't know about that. Even though I admittedly don't have as in-depth of an understanding of typology as you, I do have some grasp of the theory. So I figure that at least makes us even.

 

[Cellmold]

Apparently it is the bridge between the 2 I mentioned.... Maybe it was just poorly built.

Maybe. I remember someone presenting the idea to me that Keirsey's theory was basically designed to be marketed to businesses as a way for them to filter employee's, but that was just an idea.

However the simplification of both MBTI and Jung with his work, does make that seem conceivable.

 

[garbage]

[MENTION=5578]bologna[/MENTION], is this what you've been getting at in our discussion?

Yeah, fuck it; let's just leave it at that.

 

[garbage]

[MENTION=5578]bologna[/MENTION], is this what you've been getting at in our discussion?

Yeah, fuck it; let's just leave it at that.

 

[violet_crown]

Yeah, fuck it; let's just leave it at that.

Deal.

 

[erm]

Deal.

ENFJ

 

[violet_crown]

ENFJ

Well, well, well. My true nemesis reveals himself. I had a sneaking suspicion about who was truly pulling the strings behind this whole mess.

 

[citizen cane]

ENFJ

 

[Coriolis]

I think that the issue of different theories only cropped up in the side discussion I had with Bologna. Neither Lark nor Aquarelle ever said anything to make me think they disputed the validity of JCF, only that they weren't familiar with it.

I tried to be clear as possible in explaining both my understanding of Si, as well as how I felt it was applicable to what I'd observed of Lark's behavior. If you had been in my position, what would you have done to be more transparent?

I was commenting less on any specific discussion (other than the part about insult/respect), and more on the general idea of how the existence of multiple interpretations can fuel disagreements.

I'm not entirely sure what this means. Perhaps I'm mistaken but aren't MBTI types just particular configurations of the functions? If one comprises the other how can they be said to be distinct schools of thought? Hearing someone say this is like being told that someone loves to read, but is kind of skeptical of the whole alphabet "thing".

Just to be clear on how I think about this: I'm most familiar with functions as interpreted and understood by Myers-Briggs. That's what I understand to be the standard model, and it's the one I use when typing others. And generally speaking, anyone on this site using any other model usually states as much because it's atypical to do so. Otherwise we'd all run around saying, "Well based on xyz interpretation, I believe this person is an XXXX." So, I'm not exactly sure what you and some of the others in this thread are on about.

See, here is a good example. I spoke about different theories and interpretations. You are using the term "schools of thought". What does each of us mean?? By way of illustration: I understand the typing system we refer to as MBTI to be based on Jung, but as elaborated and modified by Myers and Briggs. Yes, Gifts Differing is the fundamental reference on the basic theory. When I write of interpretations, I mean the further work of people like Kiersey, Beebe, Thomson, and others. They all use the basic 4 dichotomies, all address function attitudes in one way or another, all come up with 4-letter type codes, etc. One of their most significant differences in my reading is how they deal with functions after dom/aux, or even after what we often refer to as dom/aux/tert/inf, in short, the 4 least preferred functions. Referencing MBTI theory is more akin to quoting the Bible or the U.S. Constitution. We can all know the basic text and its history, but may still interpret and apply it in different ways.

 

[garbage]

See, here is a good example. I spoke about different theories and interpretations. You are using the term "schools of thought". What does each of us mean?? By way of illustration: I understand the typing system we refer to as MBTI to be based on Jung, but as elaborated and modified by Myers and Briggs. Yes, Gifts Differing is the fundamental reference on the basic theory. When I write of interpretations, I mean the further work of people like Kiersey, Beebe, Thomson, and others. They all use the basic 4 dichotomies, all address function attitudes in one way or another, all come up with 4-letter type codes, etc. One of their most significant differences in my reading is how they deal with functions after dom/aux, or even after what we often refer to as dom/aux/tert/inf, in short, the 4 least preferred functions. Referencing MBTI theory is more akin to quoting the Bible or the U.S. Constitution. We can all know the basic text and its history, but may still interpret and apply it in different ways.

You're covering this insanely well. Thanks for that; I don't even have to elaborate so far, but I will if I have something further to say.

The one thing that I'll chime in with--and that I've hesitated to bring up because it'd reek of 'appeal to authority,' haughtiness, nasal intellectualism, or what have you--is that one of my primary purposes here is that my career revolves around constructing and researching models of human behavior and cognition; including probing their utility, applicability, and limitations.

I don't want to speak from authority or to have anyone trust me for the sake of doing so, but I figure that providing my background might be helpful in that it'd lend context to my assessments.

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

I was commenting less on any specific discussion (other than the part about insult/respect), and more on the general idea of how the existence of multiple interpretations can fuel disagreements.


See, here is a good example. I spoke about different theories and interpretations. You are using the term "schools of thought". What does each of us mean?? By way of illustration: I understand the typing system we refer to as MBTI to be based on Jung, but as elaborated and modified by Myers and Briggs. Yes, Gifts Differing is the fundamental reference on the basic theory. When I write of interpretations, I mean the further work of people like Kiersey, Beebe, Thomson, and others. They all use the basic 4 dichotomies, all address function attitudes in one way or another, all come up with 4-letter type codes, etc. One of their most significant differences in my reading is how they deal with functions after dom/aux, or even after what we often refer to as dom/aux/tert/inf, in short, the 4 least preferred functions. Referencing MBTI theory is more akin to quoting the Bible or the U.S. Constitution. We can all know the basic text and its history, but may still interpret and apply it in different ways.

You're covering this insanely well. Thanks for that; I don't even have to elaborate so far, but I will if I have something further to say.

The one thing that I'll chime in with--and that I've hesitated to bring up because it'd reek of 'appeal to authority,' haughtiness, nasal intellectualism, or what have you--is that one of my primary purposes here is that my career revolves around constructing and researching models of human behavior and cognition; including probing their utility, applicability, and limitations.

I don't want to speak from authority or to have anyone trust me for the sake of doing so, but I figure that providing my background might be helpful in that it'd lend context to my assessments.

this is all interesting and you guys know more than me, but it still seems like there is a twist of logic being applied here. I don't doubt yout superior knowledge of MBTI but I do doubt the way this particular argument in this thread was applied.

It seems to go that:

a.) We cannot agree on many things about MBTI, therefore the theory cannot be applied.
b.)If we all agree "for the sake of argument" that the theory is to be applied, then it still internally has space for wide interpretations.
c.)Therefore any interpretation is equally valid/invalid (in effect).
d.) So back to point A.

There is a subtle leap from b.) to c.), but it's a big one, and I am suspicious of it.

I would think that just because JCF has been applied in many different ways, does not mean there are no common understandings of it, nor that some are not much more widely accepted in the typology community than others.

In short: I would think that the "function order" theor of Dom-Aux-Tert-Inferior,possibly with 4 shadow functions (I think that is inevitable but I accept it is more widely debated), possibly without - is the widely understood model. Yes much of the common understanding may differ from Jung, and between ourselves we may interpret the same model to mean many different things, but there is still enough of a continuity and common "thread" there in order to make the idea of a coherent hypothesis and debate conceivable.

Or am I wrong?

 

[violet_crown]

I was commenting less on any specific discussion (other than the part about insult/respect), and more on the general idea of how the existence of multiple interpretations can fuel disagreements.

Alright, I'll stipulate to that.

See, here is a good example. I spoke about different theories and interpretations. You are using the term "schools of thought". What does each of us mean?? By way of illustration: I understand the typing system we refer to as MBTI to be based on Jung, but as elaborated and modified by Myers and Briggs. Yes, Gifts Differing is the fundamental reference on the basic theory. When I write of interpretations, I mean the further work of people like Kiersey, Beebe, Thomson, and others. They all use the basic 4 dichotomies, all address function attitudes in one way or another, all come up with 4-letter type codes, etc. One of their most significant differences in my reading is how they deal with functions after dom/aux, or even after what we often refer to as dom/aux/tert/inf, in short, the 4 least preferred functions. Referencing MBTI theory is more akin to quoting the Bible or the U.S. Constitution. We can all know the basic text and its history, but may still interpret and apply it in different ways.

I think what you're neglecting here is that in the case of the texts you just mentioned culture has a constraining effect on the range of acceptable or even possible interpretations. The benefit of that is that it allows us to have a common frame of reference when dealing with complex ideas, and perhaps the drawback is that we assume we have more in common than we actually do. As I mentioned in the post that you quoted, I think in the case of this forum there have grown to be norms for the interpretation of the theory. These norms are functional ones or we wouldn't have threads such as the one we're in now, and people would clarify their assumptions re: theory and interpretation more frequently.

So while, yeah, it may be a messy way to go about things, it seems to be working, so I don't have any issues with it. In general, at least I don't think that people drawing on different interpretations or theories detracts from our ability as a forum to have meaningful discussions about psychology. Feel free to correct me, though, if I'm missing your point here.

I think that this whole discussion annoys me is that the disagreement that spurred it has nothing to do with what we're discussing. I'm fine with the basic point that you're making, Coriolis.(I'm pretty much conversing with you at this point in the hopes of learning something new more than anything else.) It just pisses me off that the ignorance of certain parties is now being dressed up as a valid "alternate viewpoint" as opposed to some of us wading in here not really knowing what the fuck we were talking about.

 

[violet_crown]

I would think that just because JCF has been applied in many different ways, does not mean there are no common understandings of it, nor that some are not much more widely accepted in the typology community than others.

Oh goody, another NTP summing up my thoughts for me in a single sentance. Well done, sir.