• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

How to overcome typology?

Pionart

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
4,039
MBTI Type
NiFe
The list has actually grown quite a bit over time, and some of it may be viewed as controversial, given that we are in a typology community here.

First, type by itself can be limiting to yourself. While it can serve as a guideline to self-development, it can also set restrictions, and it's definitely possible that you forget some aspects of yourself that aren't covered by your chosen type. Over time, I noticed that some people simply cannot be boxed into a single type, their interests are too diverse and multifaceted to detect a clear hierarchy structure that could determine a type. If you would try to pin down a type, you would instead observe a pattern of type-switching or ambiguous preferences. It's not a common things but it does happen.

Second, like [MENTION=22833]Legion[/MENTION] already mentioned at the first post, is the different perception of other people. While type can be useful for a quick classification of other people, there are a few problems with this: Your own perception of someone's type can be wrong for various reasons (like misjudging, or the other person masking, or by judging someone based on their group they belong to). Also, type as a framework doesn't tell anything about a persons interests and what they prefer. An INFP, for example, might judge ethics based on their internal value system, but you can't say what exactly their values are. And, lastly, what I mentioned at first, type may not be accurate for that person at all.

My third point is stereotypes. The difference between type and stereotype is that type only provides the framework for evaluating people, while the stereotypes try to expand that framework into everyday examples. The INFP example above also fits in here, but there are some other examples: Feelers are stereotyped as female, and thinkers as male. Procrastination is seen as a Perceiving trait, even though it is present in [unhealthy] Judgers as well. Extroverts are portrayed as sociable party-animals, but extroverts who don't like parties definitely exist.

4th and last point for now: The validity of the theory. I think reckful's takedown on type dynamics should be a mandatory lecture for anyone applying type theory. Not agreeing with him is fine, after all I believe that critical thinking is something everyone should practice. There are good arguments for and against the validity of type theory, and ultimately, it's up to you to decide whether it's valuable or not. There is a similar amount of criticism about other personality theories such as the Big5. Or MBTI's dichotomies. Often, Big5 is referred as being "more scientific", but what exactly is scientific?


About overcoming typology, I guess it is valuable to expand to other areas of psychology, and some philosophy, maybe spirituality as well if you like it. Try to look beyond the scope of type, develop a different pespective. It's a huge, complex field. You could start at the stereotypes, look where they come from, and what may be other, no-typology related reasons for it. Who are the depressed artists, the procrastinating computer geeks, the party people, the boss people etc, this time not from a type perspective. You may want to look at people who are different from the norm in a substantial way, like autists or HSP's. What is their perspective, how do they perceive the world, what makes them tick, how do they deal with the differences? And maybe take a look into some philosophy as well, what is important in life, what should we strive for, what is valuable? Sometimes I see type as a simplistic, comfortable shortcut to answer larger questions.

Ok yeah,

So there's the point that Fi in one INFP is different from Fi in another INFP. You have to take note of the different ways each function is used.

There's another point that personas/stereotypes that people can fit into aren't correlated 1 to 1 with type, but are merely correlated. So clearly there are non-type (or non-Jungian type) factors at play here too.

And another point that we can learn about the beyond-type aspects by looking at people who lie outside the bell curve for whatever reason, and who thus presumably have other factors dominating their personality.

So yeah it gets at some complexities inherent in applying type theory, both in the standard and non-standard cases. These are largely about how type interacts with other factors, although also crosses into other territory.

I guess having a more comprehensive model of how a person functions would be good. Jungian type classifies the mind, but the spirit goes beyond this, does it not? So there are other things to take into account.


I actually got into typology through philosophy, or rather my initial venturings into typology were predominantly philosophical, e.g. seeing a similarity between the 4 functions and Plato's divided line, or seeing similarities with Schopenhauer's Fourfold Root of Sufficient Reason. The N/S/F/T letters provided much of the inspiration, of course interplaying with I and E. Then from there it gets into who is what type, how do we know etc.

I guess when studying typology it's like studying any science. Although that science accounts for only a cross-section of reality, by studying it wholeheartedly we can begin to get the impression that it's much more prevalent than it is, and overvalue what it is we're studying. So yes, broadening one's scope of what one studies would be useful, so as to see one's primary interest in the context of a bigger picture.
 

Pionart

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
4,039
MBTI Type
NiFe

I'm talking about how to conceptualise the human mind without Jungian typology, and whether conceptualising the human mind is worthwhile in the first place.

No need for bruh-ing.
 

Mind Maverick

ENTP 8w7 845 Sp/Sx
Joined
Jan 17, 2018
Messages
4,785
I'm talking about how to conceptualise the human mind without Jungian typology, and whether conceptualising the human mind is worthwhile in the first place.

No need for bruh-ing.
Don't overcomplicate it.
 
Top