Missing the trees for the forest

[Kephalos]

What attracted me to personality typologies in the first place was the prospect of gaining some understanding of myself. But, I have to say that I have been very dissappointed; surely I understood to some extent what the types were, especially with regard to introversion and extraversion, yet these concepts have not helped me at all in what I was initially seeking. They have been even less helpful with regard to other people; typology has been useless to try to get closer to others by trying to understand them.

The types, as abstract concepts that they are, merely summarize some patterns that can be discerned in large groups of people, such as many patients who went to see Dr. Jung. However, nothing guarantees that someone who fits, accoring to the test, to some type will behave anywhere near what the description presents as his personality. Since people seldom deal with large numbers, but with small numbers, or in reflection with just one, then these patterns are pretty much useless.

Moreover, the types could be thought of not as patterns observed in actual people, but simply as yet another expression of those things that fascinated Jung, namely the archetypes. Jung, I read, considered them as comparable to Kant's categories, that is, that they are without any empirical content and that precede any experience. So, in fact, when saying, "he is an INTJ", or "she is an INFP", you may not be asserting anything about him, or her, but merely porjecting one or another archetype unto them. Now as we become more conscious and more individual, such a view of reality fades away. I think this is good, since it allows you to SEE what is in front of you.

Anyway, just some sudden burst of thoughts...

 

[VagrantFarce]

Anyway, just some sudden burst of thoughts...

That's not very J of you

 

[nozflubber]

However, nothing guarantees that someone who fits, accoring to the test, to some type will behave anywhere near what the description presents as his personality.

This is your problem. You don't understand what personality is, I would guess...

Stop looking at people's overt BEHAVIORS, and start interpretting them. Look at their face, watch their body language, listen to their verbage, and stare into their soul. Then you will reliably see type.

 

[Colors]

Of course not. That's what makes people interesting.

Don't we all project? We choose shades of meaning out of a limited tool box of words to describe people, things, etc.

 

[Jaguar]

However, nothing guarantees that someone will behave anywhere near what the description presents as his personality. [...] these patterns are pretty much useless.

You deserve a prize for having a brain.

 

[Into It]

What attracted me to personality typologies in the first place was the prospect of gaining some understanding of myself. But, I have to say that I have been very dissappointed; surely I understood to some extent what the types were, especially with regard to introversion and extraversion, yet these concepts have not helped me at all in what I was initially seeking. They have been even less helpful with regard to other people; typology has been useless to try to get closer to others by trying to understand them.

The types, as abstract concepts that they are, merely summarize some patterns that can be discerned in large groups of people, such as many patients who went to see Dr. Jung. 1However, nothing guarantees that someone who fits, accoring to the test, to some type will behave anywhere near what the description presents as his personality. 2Since people seldom deal with large numbers, but with small numbers, or in reflection with just one, then these patterns are pretty much useless.

Moreover, the types could be thought of not as patterns observed in actual people, but simply as yet another expression of those things that fascinated Jung, namely the archetypes. Jung, I read, considered them as comparable to Kant's categories, that is, that they are without any empirical content and that precede any experience. So, in fact, when saying, "he is an INTJ", or "she is an INFP", you may not be asserting anything about him, or her, but merely porjecting one or another archetype unto them. Now as we become more conscious and more individual, such a view of reality fades away. I think this is good, since it allows you to SEE what is in front of you.

Anyway, just some sudden burst of thoughts...

I agree with your post as a whole, but I disagree with this assessment in a big way.

1. Something does guarantee that these patterns can be observed in individuals, (unless they are purposely pretending to be who they are not), namely, the answers that they filled out on the test. If you have located an ESFJ who prefers time alone to time with friends, enjoys spending most of her unplanned time (which is all of her time) considering and systematizing topics that may be considered abstract or irrelevant, is a remarkably calm and rational cares more about the acquisition of knowledge than the well-being of others, and thinks that established societal symbols don't deserve a second thought, and theorizes actually about the many ways they should be changed, if they are considered at all, then you haven't actually found an ESFJ, you've found an INTP.

2.So we see now that your assessment is incorrect. However, the thoughts that lead you to this assessment were not. It is true, with some thought, you could devise 16 NEW types, none of which are the same as the MBTI types, simply by focusing on different aspects of personality.

 

[Into It]

Stop looking at people's overt BEHAVIORS, and start interpretting them. Look at their face, watch their body language, listen to their verbage, and stare into their soul. Then you will reliably see type.

I agree with this. As an ENFP, my intelligences are inclined to interpreting behavior. (I don't know why this is, but it's extraordinarilly appealing, and is why I have been drawn to psychology from such a young age and spend all my time studying psych and philosophy.) I find type to be very reliable, not always in behaviors, per se, because behavior relies on circumstance, and you can't account for someone's upbringing and all particular circumstances. This would be absurd to expect. If you will though, focus on the temperaments first. NT's tend to be quite a bit like other NT's in some ways and NF's like NF's, It is rare that I find any NT to be as emotionally invested in people as any given NF. That alone points to a high percentage of reliability.

 

[Into It]

You deserve a prize for having a brain.

Not saying you don't have a brain, but don't listen to this guy, he's an S.

By the way, Kephalos, are you good at recognizing contingencies that may arise before a given longterm goal? I'm a smart guy, and this is the last thing on my mind. IF I can even think of a long-term goal, the steps taken to get there really elude me.

 

[Wonkavision]

What attracted me to personality typologies in the first place was the prospect of gaining some understanding of myself. But, I have to say that I have been very dissappointed; surely I understood to some extent what the types were, especially with regard to introversion and extraversion, yet these concepts have not helped me at all in what I was initially seeking. They have been even less helpful with regard to other people; typology has been useless to try to get closer to others by trying to understand them.

The types, as abstract concepts that they are, merely summarize some patterns that can be discerned in large groups of people, such as many patients who went to see Dr. Jung. However, nothing guarantees that someone who fits, accoring to the test, to some type will behave anywhere near what the description presents as his personality. Since people seldom deal with large numbers, but with small numbers, or in reflection with just one, then these patterns are pretty much useless.

Moreover, the types could be thought of not as patterns observed in actual people, but simply as yet another expression of those things that fascinated Jung, namely the archetypes. Jung, I read, considered them as comparable to Kant's categories, that is, that they are without any empirical content and that precede any experience. So, in fact, when saying, "he is an INTJ", or "she is an INFP", you may not be asserting anything about him, or her, but merely porjecting one or another archetype unto them. Now as we become more conscious and more individual, such a view of reality fades away. I think this is good, since it allows you to SEE what is in front of you.

Anyway, just some sudden burst of thoughts...

Well, I find typology very useful.

I think people become disillusioned by it when they expect it to "do" things that it cannot do.

For example, if you have been unable to get closer to people, have you really gained an understanding of them? More than a factual understanding ?

Typology can't simply implant empathy into you---You have to allow yourself to be transformed by the information and insights it contains.

To some degree, you have to be willing to believe it has value in order to really invest in it and to benefit from it.

If you are unwilling to believe it has value until you have proven it does from your own experience, you will probably never experience the full value of it.

 

[PeaceBaby]

The types, as abstract concepts that they are, merely summarize some patterns that can be discerned in large groups of people...

Agree.

Since people seldom deal with large numbers, but with small numbers, or in reflection with just one, then these patterns are pretty much useless.

Disagree; that which has broad application logically has some application on a more discrete level, albeit perhaps not as specifically.

I think people become disillusioned by it when they expect it to "do" things that it cannot do.

Agree; MBTI cannot, imo, help you learn empathy, find a compatible mate, tell you your fortune, choose a successful career, or any other number of things individuals seems to expect from it. BUT, it can paint a picture to help you gain a better appreciation of other's perspective, of another's point of view. And provide you a path for self-exploration and acceptance; tolerance.

Just a few thoughts. Good luck on your journeys!

 

[Kingfisher]

Not saying you don't have a brain, but don't listen to this guy, he's an S.

yeah, S's pretty much suck at life.

 

[Into It]

yeah, S's pretty much suck at life.

Indeed they do, sir!

I just like getting under Jaguar's skin, I've got no beef with S's (I believe you already figured that out), but as far as S's go, I will say, ISTP's are by far the most badass. I like ESTP's too.

 

[Kephalos]

There is indeed a distinction between describing behavior and explaining, or interpreting, behavior. But, I have to say that whenever I encounter the term personality, the topic is, at least primarily, about describing how people behave -- like the descriptions of personality disorders. When it comes to explaining behavior, I think there are many and sometimes incompatible – some not even psychological – ways to do it. Personality typology, as it is presented in the MBTI, is all about describing behavior and not about explaining it. A second example is the five-factor model that is built on the terms people use to describe behavior. Even the so-called cognitive functions are descriptions about people behave – actually, it’s a mixed bag, some elements are strictly about how people behave, others not so much. Not that there are no models that truly try to mimic how the mind works and how that relates to personality or behavior.

What I’m thinking about is the possibility that there are people who have good interpersonal skills – good at a level that its not only about extraversion or some such other dimension of personality – but also have good analytical skills. For instance, an exceptionally good politician could be thought of as needing interpersonal skills to know how other people feel and to make people like him easily, but could also use analytical skills to conceive good strategies. Beyond preference, would an exceptionally good politician be possible, that is, would it be something someone could be able to do without becoming miserable, if interpersonal and analytical skills were a dichotomy? This is a possibility, and there could be many more so to speak odd combinations.

But, even within the framework of Jung there are possibilities for this, such as the process of individuation that I already mentioned, and also what he called type falsification. Even Jungian analyst John Beebe talks about a patient of his who thought that he was a “extraverted sensation” type for a good deal of his life, but that in reality – or at least according to Beebe – he was an “extraverted intuitive”, and that he was simply trying to fit into the mold that his “sensing” family members had in mind. Another man who believed, because of his family’s high expectations of him at school, that he was a “thinking” type, but who really was a “feeling” type.

Another example, psychologist Allan Miller published a typology of his own, and when describing one of his four types, the "objective-holistic" type through the example of Ayn Rand, he emphasizes commentaries made by her close collaborators to the effect that she was not very introspective, and that she preferred to focus on the external, objective world. Is it really reasonable to separate introspection and what would amount to logical analysis? I mean, any typology would be more or less reductive, and in the spirit of reductionism, you should try to make the concepts as simple as possible, but then


To Into It:

I do make long-range plans, and when I do, I try to think what could go wrong or what obstacles I may find on my way; however, sometimes I get caught up in seeing how I would like things to be, that I don’t do so much planning, and sadly, not much doing either.

I’m just going to have to take your word about NT’s and NF’s, since I unfortunately right now my NF acquaintances are none. I don’t fully see, however, what you mean, taking into account the NF’s in the forums. But, even this could be interpreted as just being that forum interaction is too narrow a situation for anyone to reveal their full personality, since all we do here is discuss and converse. I say this, because I don’t think that I’m not invested emotionally in other people, but there is always the possibility that maybe what I call emotional investment is utter coldness to an NF.

To Wonkavision:

Credo ut utar, then? Perhaps, but that is not a good reflection on MBTI.

 

[Wonkavision]

To Wonkavision:

Credo ut utar, then? Perhaps, but that is not a good reflection on MBTI.

I looked it up, but couldn't find the meaning of "Credo ut utar", so I don't understand your comment.

 

[Into It]

There is a member on here called Solitarywalker. He used to go by Bluewing. He has put together 'philosophies of type' that don't focus on the behavior of the type, but the unconscious tendencies instead. you could google 'bluewing INTJ profile' or 'solitarywalker INTJ profile' and it will lead you to his in-depth thread. You may find that more appealing than the 'pigeonholing' methods of MBTI, without having to abandon the theory. Tell me what you think of the profile.

 

[Kephalos]

Wonkavision,

I beg you to ignore my comment, and to foregive me for having made it in the first place. I don't know why I make such comments from time to time, dismissing and mocking what is said to me. I really regretted having made that comment as soon as I posted it, and I have actually been quite ashamed to post here for a few days, fearing that the response to it would put me in my place as I deserved. It was nothing but pedantic, arrogant, rude, unjustified. Again, I am so sorry.

Into It,

I will read it, but I see that it is a little dense, so it will take me some time to understand it, and probably post again when I can think of an answer.

 

[thisGuy]

i think your missing the forest for the trees

 

[Splittet]

Perhaps you should read some real psychology? I suggest you read evolutionary psychology, social psychology and personality psychology. One should read evolutionary psychology to understand the mechanisms that are shaping our behavior and thoughts, to understand what human nature is, how we are all similar, one should read social psychology to understand the power of the situation and personality psychology to understand how we differ from each other. To fully understand yourself, you must also understand how you are similar to all others, not just how you are similar to only some or completely unique. It's a great tragedy we only tend to see how we differ from each other.