The harmful side of psychological theories, including personality theories and IQ

[Cellmold]

Are you addressing me, or just making random, idiotic projections?

This is the second time I have tried to have an adult exchange with you and found you deliberately obtuse. I won't make another attempt. You have absolutely nothing to offer.

Interesting I havn't been the one throwing personal attacks out.

Incidentally are you going to make that thread you mentioned earlier? :

I do have a problem with MBTI theories, but that is because they are wrong and self-limiting, rather than genuinely harmful in the way you describe. I plan to develop this idea in another thread.

I would be interested in hearing your insight.

Oh by the way the bitterness comment was not aimed at you. It was more of an abstract personal epiphany of my own self that I realised through this little back and forth between you and I. Sorry if it offended you anyhow.

 

[Little_Sticks]

[MENTION=825]ygolo[/MENTION]
My reaction to what I posted, I think, is that I believe we have a duty to ourselves to define the self as apart from others by understanding how we relate to our own inner state, indirectly defining how we relate to others at the same time. If time is about change and knowledge comes from change, what we hopefully gain in the process is a way to achieve that goal. Truth in a sense, or at least in the sense of identity, can be more like an assertion, as well as a conditioning, except that the dog and trainer are both influencing one another at the same time, fixating their roles, even though from the trainer's point of view, he might believe to have more control over that. But it all depends on the motivations of the dog as well, really. A dog can act like a dog, but it doesn't mean it thinks like one as the trainer believes and sees only external appearances.



I feel someone that has a strong concept of identity will be able to integrate an entity view with an incremental view in order to create a stable understanding of them-self and others.
If one focuses on the incremental view to the detriment of an entity view, what limits of themselves and others will they have in mind or fight for in order to make decisions? Theoretically, none, since the incremental view is that no such things can be determined and they will not know them-self or anyone else either.
If one focuses on the entity view to the detriment of an incremental view, what can such a person do that they have already decided that they can't or shouldn't do? Theoretically, none, since the entity view is quite strict in defining what our roles are to be.
By utilizing both, one can understand momentarily, when it is deemed important, what entity they are, assertively, and use that to guide them in a direction, but roam incrementally in that direction.



So my reaction is that the disconnect people have with the theory is that they are focusing on one over the other and finding the natural problems that arise from that.
(Entity >> Incremental) --> Resistant to necessary change
(Incremental >> Entity) --> Has no concept of their limits or anyone else's
In my opinion then, unfortunately in this light, overall positive reactions to MBTI can indicate a big entity view that allows the person to almost completely define who they are as coming from their type before all else; and unfortunately, in this light, overall negative reactions to MBTI can indicate a big incremental view that allows a person almost no room to define them-self and other people.
I believe integrating both can bring a person a unique kind of peace, as they are both receptive to change and able to discern the more prominent characteristics of themselves and other people, even if those characteristics must change as time goes on.

Yes, to anyone considering, I'm not a psychologist or anything, but this is genuinely how I feel/think about this.

 

[ygolo]

[MENTION=7785]Little_Sticks[/MENTION]
Thanks for clarifying. Interesting analogy you make regarding the dog and the trainer...the perspective is vaguely existential (like a Samuel Becket play).

Seems like you make a good case for needing some degree of having an entity view, and needing a balance. However, how do you determine what can be changed and what cannot? Once you decide that something cannot be changed, do you ever reconsider it?

Interestingly, Martin Seligman wrote a book titled What you can Change and What you can't. I got this book at the same time I got a couple of other books by him. Unfortunately, when I initially read this, I was on a self-help binge, and the information blended together with all the nonsense I consumed at this time. I may revisit this, since I have come to believe Seligman is a good researcher.

 

[Salomé]

Incidentally are you going to make that thread you mentioned earlier? :

I would be interested in hearing your insight.

I can't be bothered right now. Not worth my time.
Do your own research, if you're genuinely interested.
Here are a couple of papers to get you started:
http://www.indiana.edu/~jobtalk/Articles/develop/mbti.pdf
http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=hss_pubs&sei-redir=1
And a philosophical treatment, germane to this thread:
http://www.fordham.edu/philosophy/davenport/texts/Jung-MyersBriggs.pdf

Oh by the way the bitterness comment was not aimed at you. It was more of an abstract personal epiphany of my own self that I realised through this little back and forth between you and I. Sorry if it offended you anyhow.

Bizarre + Glad I could help.

 

[pv255]

I believe that using psychological theories to attain knowledge of oneself can lead to becoming entity theorists, and utilizing permanent, pervasive, and personal explanations for negative life events--leading to pessimism and the negative effects that come along with it.

So, how do you avoid pessimism during the process of self-discovery?

The problem I think you are describing is, in varying degrees, the problem with objectivity. I must explicitly define my uses of the terms objective and subjective.

Objectivity- A proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are met and are "mind-independent"—that is, existing freely or independently from the thoughts of a conscious entity or subject.
Subjectivity - refers to individual interpretations of experiences consisting of emotional, intellectual, and spiritual perceptions and misperceptions.

In regards to human behavior, at the highest level of observation objectivity does not exist. Everything is subjective. As a species, why do we pursue survival and advancement? I don't have a clue. But within a defined scope anything subjective can be treated objectively. Objectivity is an agreement of a baseline from which we compare. Subjectivity is a comparison from a personal baseline. For example, imagine this hypothetical conversation.
Fisherman 1: Dude! You wouldn't believe how big this fish I caught was.
Fisherman 2: No way man, you think everything is big. I caught a bigger fish last week.
Both fishermen are boosting about the physical properties of their fish from a subjective point of view. They feel good about their accomplishment, and if they were talking to a non-fisherman, they would likely be held in high-esteem for their ability. For the sake of comparison, we assigned symbols to represent quantity called numbers. Then we combine numbers with additional symbols, such as grams and meters, to objectify physical properties. Now we can easily compare physical properties of everything with everyone. The upside of doing this is enormous, but what are the downsides? Those fishermen can now explicitly say they caught a 15 kg fish, and their audience, who previously may have been impressed, may not be impressed, because they heard about someone who caught a 20 kg fish on the other side of the continent. The over use of objectivity puts us in competition with EVERYONE and demeans our individual accomplishments.

How does this relate to psychological theories? Jung identified (objectified) cognitive functions by observing neurotic people. The MBTI system identified general manifestations of each type and popularized Jung's functions. I think the downside to identifying personality types is the presentation of MBTI. I haven't read any papers specifically authored by Myers or Briggs, but the websites and forums I frequent over emphasis the manifestations. I think they do a poor job at connecting the symbol (sense, intuition, think, feel, intro/extravert) to the concept. Analogizing this to mechanics. If you are trying to figure out an object's next movement, you cant just look at the object and say it will go where similar objects of the past have gone. You need to account for external forces being applied to the object and the forces the object is applying to its environment.

 

[ygolo]

And a philosophical treatment, germane to this thread:
http://www.fordham.edu/philosophy/davenport/texts/Jung-MyersBriggs.pdf

I really like this paper. In one paper, Davenport touched almost all the criticisms I have brought up over the years, including the main topic of this thread.

Note, however, that the Five Factor Model avoids only the the Bipartitism objection...and I believe this distinction between the FFM and Myers-Briggs is superficial, and may, in fact, be a result of naive adherence to the dogma of psychometrics (If one wants to design a sorting instrument, the questions on the instrument should sort, but sometimes questions that sort are seen a "biased")

 

[pv255]

How does this relate to psychological theories? Jung identified (objectified) cognitive functions by observing neurotic people. The MBTI system identified general manifestations of each type and popularized Jung's functions. I think the downside to identifying personality types is the presentation of MBTI. I haven't read any papers specifically authored by Myers or Briggs, but the websites and forums I frequent over emphasis the manifestations. I think they do a poor job at connecting the symbol (sense, intuition, think, feel, intro/extravert) to the concept. Analogizing this to mechanics. If you are trying to figure out an object's next movement, you cant just look at the object and say it will go where similar objects of the past have gone. You need to account for external forces being applied to the object and the forces the object is applying to its environment.

I didnt relate this thought to the previous paragraph. The poor connection between the symbol and the concept is due to our inability to convey the experience of observation via words. We are telling people something that isnt tellable. And by comparing manifestations that arent comparable, we demeaning individual uniqueness. A common problem when there is a vague connection between symbols and ideas is people begin identifying with the symbol more than identifying with the underlying concepts, which can lead to an identity crisis. Would the identity crisis occur if the concepts weren't identified; If the expectation didnt exist?

 

[Little_Sticks]

However, how do you determine what can be changed and what cannot? Once you decide that something cannot be changed, do you ever reconsider it?

To be honest, the only things I consider truly fundamentally unchangeable are completely abstract to me (archetypes), but I believe those things can't dictate what someone is capable of. Limits can be overcome and reset; they are not absolutely defined in my mind.
Evolution is an intuitive theory to me because it shows how something can transform into something else; some might argue that when something dies, it is gone. But I see the affects that something helped cause and realize its life is also more than its own - because its definition depends on how it affects and thus defines other things. Extinction even, can be the catalyst for indirect/direct change.

I think what it comes down to is the idea of being able to "change limits"; by experiencing reality in relation to ourselves we come to understand our limits in various ways by defining them through means of estimations, rationalizations, and reasons for why things are the way they are and even why we think they should become a certain way - to do so is to believe our bias is objective rather than know how our bias is both objective and subjective. Common sense is something I see as a metaphor for the understanding of limits that are really hard to change or something we don't really know how to change. It is common sense that I can't turn one of my hands into a fin because we have almost no understanding of how that would occur or take place. The more knowledge we get about something, the easier it becomes to change such a limit. Supposedly, scientists think they found the Higgs-Boson; that's rather amazing that something like an atom can now be broken down and changed into another atom, an idea that people might even think was completely subjective at one point. I guess if you think about it, that concept, knowledge, really is power because we can use it to change other knowledge, even itself.

To answer your question then, I guess for me, practically as a rule, it's then good to have an idea of what is common sense and what isn't. What isn't common sense, I consider changeable. What is common sense, becomes the limiting, unchangeable container for what is changeable. For me to reconsider common sense then requires knowledge to support the idea of reconsideration.

I'm not sure that's what you were looking for, but I kind of doubt I really know that much to begin with. Maybe that's why I still post here.

 

[highlander]

Summary
I believe that using psychological theories to attain knowledge of oneself can lead to becoming entity theorists, and utilizing permanent, pervasive, and personal explanations for negative life events--leading to pessimism and the negative effects that come along with it.

How do you avoid pessimism during the process of self-discovery?
With that background set, I'd like to discuss the how to avoid pessimism as we learn about Big 5, Myers-Briggs, Jugian functions, multiple intelligences, IQ, Holland types, enneagram, ...

1. What explanatory power do you give these psychological theories?
2. If the psychological theories explain negative things about your life, how do you deal with these explanations?
3. If the psychological theories explain positive things about your life, how do you deal with these explanations?
4. Do you deal with both positive and negative explanations in the same say?

I don't use typology to explain positive or negative events in my life. It's that simple. It helps me to be more understanding and appreciative of others. It helps me to understand myself and to some extent, things that I can do to grow as a person.

 

[Salomé]

I really like this paper. In one paper, Davenport touched almost all the criticisms I have brought up over the years, including the main topic of this thread.

Note, however, that the Five Factor Model avoids only the the Bipartitism objection...and I believe this distinction between the FFM and Myers-Briggs is superficial, and may, in fact, be a result of naive adherence to the dogma of psychometrics (If one wants to design a sorting instrument, the questions on the instrument should sort, but sometimes questions that sort are seen a "biased")

I think it's deeper than that. To dismantle the false dichotomies of MBTI (which perhaps ironically, a trait-based theory like FFM which maps closely onto MBTI does best) is to abolish "type" as a concept with any predictive validity or pretty much any meaning at all...

 

[ygolo]

I think it's deeper than that. To dismantle the false dichotomies of MBTI (which perhaps ironically, a trait-based theory like FFM which maps closely onto MBTI does best) is to abolish "type" as a concept with any predictive validity or pretty much any meaning at all...

Bipartitism? Well. The dichotomies may indeed be false, but I think that is a moot point if trait and trait-culster theories (which a "type" theory like MBTI is being formulated as) are, as a whole, based on a house of cards. The simple idea that a person "has" a personality trait in the same way that object has a particular property needs quite a bit of validity.

Like Davenport's paper was making out, trait based theories (he didn't include FFM, but it shares almost all the failings of the three theories he mentioned), give an impression of a "period table" as pertaining to personality.

 

[Salomé]

Bipartitism? Well. The dichotomies may indeed be false, but I think that is a moot point if trait and trait-culster theories (which a "type" theory like MBTI is being formulated as) are, as a whole, based on a house of cards. The simple idea that a person "has" a personality trait in the same way that object has a particular property needs quite a bit of validity.

Like Davenport's paper was making out, trait based theories (he didn't include FFM, but it shares almost all the failings of the three theories he mentioned), give an impression of a "period table" as pertaining to personality.

You don't have to throw out trait-theories to demolish MBTI though. That's the point.
Because if we are simply measuring traits (albeit an arbitrary, non-definitive list), "types" disappear.

Questionnaires which force a choice between "opposites" which aren't actually opposites (non-dichotomous) must perforce, produce spurious results. Questionnaires which arbitrarily select a mid-point to determine whether a person is introvert or extrovert, sensor or intuitive are entirely misleading.
Introversion exists, so does extraversion. But only 16%* of the population is accurately one of these "types", the vast majority are ambiverts. Same on every other scale. Normal distributions across the board. The similarities between people far exceed the differences. But 2 million people a year aren't going to pay to hear that they aren't special snowflakes. There's no money in telling someone "hey, congratulations, XXXX, you're basically normal". It's a racket.

*according to Eysenck

 

[ygolo]

You don't have to throw out trait-theories to demolish MBTI though. That's the point.
Because if we are simply measuring traits (albeit an arbitrary, non-definitive list), "types" disappear.

Questionnaires which force a choice between "opposites" which aren't actually opposites (non-dichotomous) must perforce, produce spurious results. Questionnaires which arbitrarily select a mid-point to determine whether a person is introvert or extrovert, sensor or intuitive are entirely misleading.
Introversion exists, so does extraversion. But only 16%* of the population is accurately one of these "types", the vast majority are ambiverts. Same on every other scale. Normal distributions across the board. The similarities between people far exceed the differences. But 2 million people a year aren't going to pay to hear that they aren't special snowflakes. There's no money in telling someone "hey, congratulations, XXXX, you're basically normal". It's a racket.

*according to Eysenck

Yes. I realize what yo are saying.

There are two additional points I was trying to make:
1) Trait based theories could just as well be bunk. True we can have traits without "trait clusters" to some extent, but the fact that factor analysis based on the lexical hypothesis leads to five factors, and that these factors are based on descriptors, may indicate nothing about personalities, and only illustrate how descriptions of people through traits correlate to each other on average. IOW, FFM could be a theory of human language with an add-on of how a particular person can be described, rather than human nature and the nature of the person herself/himself.
2) Perhaps the more subtle point, is how questionnaires are designed.
a) I am sure you are aware, that averaging/summing independent measurements of any random variable tends to produce a Gaussian distribution of some sort. If X is a uniform random variable, the sum or average of measurements of X will produce a more Gaussian distribution. If Y is a bi-modal distribution, the sum or average of measurements of Y will produce a more Gaussian distribution. Thus, the very act of averaging/summing can can conceal the true nature of the underlying distribution, and make everything look Gaussian.
b) Also, polarizing questions are often offensive to people. Thus questions that may reveal a true "split" in personality "types" may be too difficult to place on a questionnaire because the question may offend some.

 

[Mole]

Last night I watched Jack Kerouac typing his famous novel, "On the Road". And I was struck by how mechanical typing is. After all, a typewriter is entirely mechanical.

And I couldn't help thinking that typing on a typewriter is just as mechanical as typing a personality.

So we are all on the road with Jack Kerouac, Dean Moriarty and Marylou, looking into the rear vision mirror, watching the mechanical age recede behind us as the electric age rushes towards us through the windshield.

 

[Salomé]

Yes. I realize what yo are saying.

There are two additional points I was trying to make:

1) Trait based theories could just as well be bunk. True we can have traits without "trait clusters" to some extent, but the fact that factor analysis based on the lexical hypothesis leads to five factors, and that these factors are based on descriptors, may indicate nothing about personalities, and only illustrate how descriptions of people through traits correlate to each other on average. IOW, FFM could be a theory of human language with an add-on of how a particular person can be described, rather than human nature and the nature of the person herself/himself.
2) Perhaps the more subtle point, is how questionnaires are designed.
a) I am sure you are aware, that averaging/summing independent measurements of any random variable tends to produce a Gaussian distribution of some sort. If X is a uniform random variable, the sum or average of measurements of X will produce a more Gaussian distribution. If Y is a bi-modal distribution, the sum or average of measurements of Y will produce a more Gaussian distribution. Thus, the very act of averaging/summing can can conceal the true nature of the underlying distribution, and make everything look Gaussian.
b) Also, polarizing questions are often offensive to people. Thus questions that may reveal a true "split" in personality "types" may be too difficult to place on a questionnaire because the question may offend some.

These are interesting points.

1. I don't think you can argue it says nothing about personality. You can argue it isn't the last word, but it does say something. Even (human)language says something about (human)personality. And when features are universal, it says something meaningful. But all this stuff is derived from folk psychology, from what Daniel Dennett calls "the intentional stance". It's a useful abstraction to employ when you don't know any better.

2a. It's not a problem with questionnaire design, because the questionnaire is implementing the theory. The problem is with the theory. The questionnaire inadvertently proves the theory wrong (by producing contradictory results).
You don't need to sum the results. You simply need to look at the results pattern which is that most people cluster around the median - I.e., do not exhibit strong preferences one way or the other, which you would expect if the categories were true dichotomies.

B. If that's the case, it's pointless to attempt, so we still end up with a flawed approach to defining personality differences.