where does Types come from? is it really a 'mystery' or 'God-given' ?

[entropie]

ouh guys, I dont get shit what you are talking about and I so would like to participate -.- Would someone mind to sum it up for me ?

 

[nanook]

ouh guys, I dont get shit what you are talking about and I so would like to participate -.- Would someone mind to sum it up for me ?

lol ... how about that: type ain't trait. *g*

 

[entropie]

ah that you said because i said trait and not type, didnt you ? Ah you psychologists, I will never get you

you go on, i am outta here

 

[redacted]

i already said myself, that we are here to validate the theory.

Validating theories is easy.

My approach is to try as hard as I can to disprove every theory I come across. If the theories still stand, I'll believe in them by default (which isn't to say I won't drop them in a second if I come across new information that makes the theory seem wrong.)

I only believe in things when all the other options make less sense.

 

[nanook]

i sort of agree with you, except you and me, we can not look out of the window without applying our "theories" to the world, so the notion of "i don't believe ..." can only go so deep. we are supposed to hold theories in an open space and improve them all the time. most theories will have to be translated (integrated) at some time, rather then fully abandoned. meaning that a statistical tool may prove it to be valid, but also proves it to be not a typology. this sort of differentiation is not based on actual "proving" of something, its the product of enriching one's set or perspectives and or sorting them, according to their own nature.

for instance we believe that chairs and desks are types of a single family (furniture). this makes sense so far, but if you would apply the most basic pattens of human thinking (eg the nature of holons) consequently to chairs and desks (and everything else), you would come to an entirely different result. concrete furniture is not a naturalistic typology, and it is not a holon, nor is a desk -if viewed on it's gross level of material nauture- a holon. but this perspective is only possible, once we zoom out so far, that we not only see furniture but the whole world, because only then we see what the relevant common denominators are, and what are random elusive lookalikes. (furnitures are artifacts. wood is close to a holon. a tree is a true holon. a forest is not a holon, but all trees on earth are a holon. the idea/design of a chair is a sort of a holon, but its of purely psychological nature, and not related in any natural/characteristic/structural way to the physical artifact)

 

[redacted]

i sort of agree with you, except you and me, we can no look out of the window without applying our "theories" to the world, so the notion of "i don't believe ..." can only go so deep. we are supposed to hold theories in an open space and improve them all the time. most theories will have to be translated (integrated) at some time, rather then fully abandoned. meaning that a statistical tool may prove valid, but also proves to be not a typology. this sort of differentiation is not based on actual "proving" of something, its the product of enriching one's set or perspectives and or sorting them, according to their own nature.

for instance we believe that chairs and desks are types of a single family. this makes sense so far, but if you would apply the most basic pattens of human thinking (eg the nature of holons) consequently to chairs and desks, you would come to an entirely different result. but this is only possible, once we zoom out so far, that we not only see furniture but the whole world, because only then we see what the relevant common denominators are, and what are random elusive lookalikes.

Listen, I have my own Ni-ish system of typology mulling around in my unconscious. But MBTI itself -- it's too reduced down for me to think of it as having much prescriptive validity. It's like taking a sound file and compressing it 20 times before listening to it -- you'll be able to make out the basic rhythm, but you'll miss out on so much subtlety.

 

[garbage]

yeah, so if the term typology refers to the traits, its still referring to something real, it may just be in-accurate like everything we think and talk about.

but there is close to zero information on how exactly type (actual human cognition) is actually given "at" birth. maybe just the "quadras" (socioncs term for a class of several types) is given "at" birth. also: what does "given" mean anyway. there is a process before birth. there is hormonal influence during pregnancy. its not just sperm. also there is a process before sperm. and there is a process of sperm hitting on eggs, as revealed by woody allen movies. so everything is given, plus the term "given" is totally meaningless. its just "pushing the question backwards until its out of subjective comprehension"

Let's try this again.

"Given at birth" as opposed to learned or acquired over one's lifetime. There. Now it's not meaningless at all.

I wasn't trying to describe how they're given, which I believed to be out of the scope of the OP. That's a question for biologists and neurologists.

 

[Moiety]

Personality "types" are just approximations. There's no mystery here.

It's like saying, "isn't it weird that there are 7 colors (red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet) in the color spectrum? How is it that all colors fall into these categories?". The answer to that question is that, if you want to analyze colors with a framework with 7 color terms, you can. You can zoom in (more colors) or zoom out (fewer colors) and still make generalizations. Frameworks are just levels of categorization. They don't even objectively exist.

You can analyze certain dimensions of personality with MBTI. You could zoom in and find plenty of differences between people that share a type. Or you could zoom out and find plenty of similarities among types.

Agreed.


Nature VS Nurture...I don't believe in Nature dictating the majority of our personality. It just doesn't seem logical to me. Pre-dispositions are bound to have an affect but not with such weight.

 

[nanook]

i most certainly agree that type can not be acquired over lifetime. i could not think of a way, how this word might make sense.

but the factors, that put such a configurations into place might be factors, that continually co-exist with us, during life time. then, type would be co-created every day. it might be tiny materialistic factors that co-create it. for instance, it is discussed, that cutting of your balls would render you largely genderless (psychologically), if not female. it might also be very big factors that we can not even conceive. causality is not linear, yet it includes the linear. we seek for an explanation, and push it backwards or sidewards with linear thought. linear thought can grasp the idea of "future follows past" and the idea of "left defines right and reverse" but somehow both understandings, summarized, still don't match reality, and one alone sure does never match it.

 

[nanook]

i most certainly agree that type can not be acquired over lifetime. i could not think of a way, how this word might make sense.

but the factors, that put such a configurations into place might be factors, that continually co-exist with us, during life time. then, type would be co-created every day. it might be tiny materialistic factors that co-create it. for instance, it is discussed, that cutting of your balls would render you largely genderless (psychologically), if not female. it might also be very big factors that we can not even conceive. causality is not linear, yet it includes the linear. we seek for an explanation, and push it backwards or sidewards with linear thought. linear thought can grasp the idea of "future follows past" and the idea of "left defines right and reverse" but somehow both understandings, summarized, still don't match reality, and one alone sure does never match it.

summary for entropie: it's a mystery. keep the space open.