Thoughts on Myers-Briggs

[Mole]

And in general, dogmatic insistence that an intellectual product has no utility at all is just that tiny bit dumber than the dogmatic insistence that the intellectual product explains everything.

It is not accepted in any accredited University. So it is not an intellectual product.

It is an American cult that is being marketed to foreign school children.

Foreign school children have been chosen because they are emotionally and financially dependent on their parents. But note, permission of their parents is never obtained.

And also note that foreign school children are not protected by the American Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

 

[Kalach]

That's a distressing position to take there, Vic. One's ideas aren't ideas until someone else accredits them? That puts a lot of my ideas out of commission immediately. And yet, I still have them.

But judging an idea by its pragmatic fruits isn't such a bad idea. So, the thought here is MBTI is flawed because it is used to mislead, yeah? Mislead about what? The true nature of people, I guess, right? And this is a bad thing because people thus misled miss what's more important, yeah?

So what's that thing people are missing out on when they fall into MBTI faithfulness?



Do tell me it's not "proper human connection", because I had that conversation with an INFJ the other night. "You tell me about this stuff," she said, and didn't finish the sentence because she'd said enough with her expression to show how unimportant it was. "It's how I understand people," I claimed in reply. "That's the way I do it." Not letting a thinker think is perhaps not the best way forward in a conversation, but then, I wasn't letting her feel, so it's even-steven.

And I know that because MBTI tells me so.


*genuflect*

 

[Mole]

That's a distressing position to take there, Vic. One's ideas aren't ideas until someone else accredits them? That puts a lot of my ideas out of commission immediately. And yet, I still have them.

But judging an idea by its pragmatic fruits isn't such a bad idea. So, the thought here is MBTI is flawed because it is used to mislead, yeah? Mislead about what? The true nature of people, I guess, right? And this is a bad thing because people thus misled miss what's more important, yeah?

So what's that thing people are missing out on when they fall into MBTI faithfulness?

Do tell me it's not "proper human connection", because I had that conversation with an INFJ the other night. "You tell me about this stuff," she said, and didn't finish the sentence because she'd said enough with her expression to show how unimportant it was. "It's how I understand people," I claimed in reply. "That's the way I do it." Not letting a thinker think is perhaps not the best way forward in a conversation, but then, I wasn't letting her feel, so it's even-steven.

And I know that because MBTI tells me so.

*genuflect*

Possibly we have a cultural difference.

You were founded by a cult called Puritanism and went on to a strict separation of Church and State. This meant that your State could not fund your cults, only business could.

Also a doctrine of your founding cult was that wealth was a sign of God's grace. And in fact many of your cults are now fabulously wealthy - the Mormons are a good example of many.

So it is not surprising that, "MBTI", is a registered business trademark. And it is not surprising that like any business MBTI needs to grow to survive. So the business has been expanded globally to recruit foreign school children.

On the other hand, we were founded by the Enlightenment and have a more relaxed attitude to religion. So it is no surprise that out of a Gross Domestic Product of less than one trillion dollars, the Australian State gives 45 billion dollars to religion each year.

So while you take the marriage of business and religion for granted, we look at it askance.

And we don't take kindly to the business of religion preying on school children.

 

[Kalach]

This may perhaps have been asked before but, cult of what?

Or does this cult perhaps have no nefarious purpose, it's just that it is base and pedestrian and not at all spiritual? None of this addresses the content of the cult's dogma, just presumably it's effect.

Vic, you're going to have to become MBTI-qualified! Take the course, become a practitioner. It's the only way to redirect this spiritless decay juggernaut bearing down on our children! No use sniping from the sidelines, watching the poor kiddies' minds and spirits be ground into mechanistic, materialistic dust. If you grasp back just one of the souls being lost, it'll be worth the peril you'll be placing yourself in daily.

All you need to do--and it's a simple step really, just a little retreat from your moral position, the tiniest of compromises--is welcome Jung into your heart. That's all! Nothing really! You won't have to genuflect as we do, that's just for show really, and you don't have to do it at all today. Just consider. Think it over. My line is always open. You other guys can call too, we'll have a session.

 

[Valuable_Money]

I dont think it was forer effect for me.

I initialy tested INTP but upoun reading the description of ENTP I relized that that was my type.

I agree that alot of the super=theoretical stuff is just moot(Moot only has one meaning and its the meaning we use here in merrka) hogwash(Shadow functions ect.)
But somthing it did open my mind to is all the different ways that people view the world.
The functinos Fe Ni Te Si Se, are all ways of thinking that are different from mine, I always assumed before then that all people had the same or similar trains of thought to me(making all sorts of crazy connections ect.) so for someone to put all these different perspectives on life into words was really eye opening.

So yeah, MBTI is really really flawed but its also really really interesting.

Whats all this crap about the military industrial complex?

 

[Mole]

...welcome Jung into your heart.

Welcome Jung into my heart?

Jung freely and enthusiastically supported the wrong side in WW II.

He failed his psychoanalysis with Sigmund Freud because he was unable to resolve his father fixation. And he went on to transfer his father fixation to the Fuhrer.

And as a sideline he sexually abused his female patients.

Perhaps you would like us to join this young man singing, "Tomorrow belongs to me" at -

YouTube - Tomorrow belongs to me

 

[Valuable_Money]

Welcome Jung into my heart?

Jung freely and enthusiastically supported the wrong side in WW II.

He failed his psychoanalysis with Sigmund Freud because he was unable to resolve his father fixation. And he went on to transfer his father fixation to the Fuhrer.

And as a sideline he sexually abused his female patients.

Perhaps you would like us to join this young man singing, "Tomorrow belongs to me" at -

YouTube - Tomorrow belongs to me

OH SNAAAAPP

 

[Kalach]

It's a two-way street. We here at MBTILuvsU like to think we're rehabilitating the poor man. If we can whitewash the history in our hearts, what greater dreams await us all!

 

[wildcat]

Thoughts on Myers-Briggs

Here, I try to be reasonably concise but complete in my thoughts about Myers-Briggs. It would be interesting to see how people differ in opinions.

I expect people to post their own views on personality or respond to the posts others (including myself) make.

I summarize the beliefs I hold at the top, as well as experiments I'd like to see done. The rest are my thoughts in more detail.

Beliefs/Hypotheses I Hold

• The Forer Effect is the result of the similarities among human beings.
• Big Five Theory is a description of descriptions of personality
• Behavioral models are useful, but behaviorsm is too limiting. I believe there are actually things underneath driving us, defining our needs, and determining the themes of our lives.
• We are not "tabular rasa" but are born with some innate tendencies. These tendencies in-turn color our interactions with the environment, while the environment shapes our personalities further.
• Temperaments and Interaction Styles are excellent ways to behaviorally get a first guess on the personality.
• The top two cognitive functions do determine type, and are important to understand for growth…i.e. I believe Isabel Myers's extrapolation of Jung's work was reasonably sound. However, unless obvious, I don't believe it is easy to type people directly like with functions.
• Jung was onto something with archetypes, and with Function-attitudes (functions).
• John Beebe was onto something with Archetypal Complexes, and that Berens was tracking the same something.
• Lenore Thomson was onto something with the tertiary temptation as well.

Experiments I'd like to see done

• Have people read descriptions and are asked how well it describe someone they know well. See if similar thing to Forer Effect shows up. This would add weight to the hypothesis that the Forer Effect is the result of the similarities human beings.
• See the difference in Forer Effect between random descriptions given to people, and descriptions given to people that are supposedly based on a highly accurate personality test.
• See if people accept inaccurate beliefs more readily if embedded within accurate descriptions.
• Do a Big-Five like factor analysis on the descriptions of things.
• take sections of the population skewed by personalities based on the Big Five itself, and see if different factors don't emerge from different segmentations of personality.

Forer Effect
The Forer Effect is the observation that individuals will give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality that supposedly are tailored specifically for them, but are in fact vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people.

Is it possible that the descriptions are indeed accurate? ...even if the accuracy is the result of the Forer Effect…that is, even if they describe many other people?

Human beings have a lot in common, and if the Forer Effect may simply be a reflection of that. It would be interesting to have people read descriptions and are asked how well it describe someone they know well.

Or is that people accept descriptions that don't apply to them simply because it is generated by a test that is supposed to describe their personality? I'd like to see the difference in Forer Effect between random descriptions given to people, and descriptions given to people that are supposedly based on a highly accurate personality test.

Do people accept inaccurate beliefs embedded within accurate descriptions? That would be another interesting thing to test, because it would mean the Forer Effect feeds on it self.

Descriptions, 3rd person vs. 1st person

There is an interesting dynamics tests that give descriptions back as a result of questions asked about descriptions. One would expect that a description built from descriptions a person agreed described himself/herself, would be agreed upon as well.

I would expect a similar story in 3rd person descriptions. The 3rd party would read a description of the person the same as what they answered as descriptions in the questionnaire.

If the Forer effect is cold reading, then a description based test being fed back to a person is warm reading. But in either case, the descriptions themselves can be helpful to people who need their own descriptions given to them from outside.

Also, the descriptions would be different depending on who was describing it. There is an interesting classification scheme for "traits" known as Johari and Nohari windows. Each window is split into four categories…Arena (known to both self and others), Blind Spot (known to others but not self), and Façade (known to self but not others). The Johari window describes positive traits, the Nohari, negative ones.

So here we see some value. If the person describes to others things about themselves that others do not know, it may be fruitful. Similarly, an outside party tells someone how they are perceived would also be helpful. The languages of personality systems can serve as a short had for this sort of communication.

In a way, the results of the Big Five tests are nothing more than regurgitations of the test questions. The only real difference is that the Big Five aggregates the descriptions and then gives you where you are in comparison to the population on the five factors. That is the extent of the value of the Big Five…it lets you draw comparisons between yourself and a larger population. It may in addition, serve as good reflection of your beliefs about yourself, and if used with a Johari/Nohari-like technique, then it may further inform you how others perceive themselves compared to you.

Big Five

I am not disputing the "truth" of the Big Five model. I am, however, disputing how much Big Five Theory can be used a description of personality. In short, I posit that the Big Five Theory (the theory being that personality has five factors, specifically Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism) is a description of descriptions of personality.

The Big Five is based on the Lexical Hypothesis. The lexical hypothesis states that
the most salient and socially relevant personality differences in people’s lives will eventually become encoded into language. I find this hypothesis rather dubious. Certainly some things will become encoded into language…but I believe that this encoding will distort and filter the true aspects of personality.

This brings up some questions for me. Will majority opinion of a population skew how "traits" are associated with each other in a 3rd party based evaluation of personality? On self-report based personality descriptions, will we again only see the associations people make about themselves? This too could be largely skewed from their actual personalities.

It would be interesting to do a similar factor analysis on the descriptions of things. I think you will find a similar (though not exactly the same) framework as the Big Five (designed for people) appear. If this occurs, then the hypothesis that the Big Five is a description descriptions would gain more weight.

Also, it would be interesting to take sections of the population skewed by personalities based on the Big Five itself, and see if different factors don't emerge from different segmentations of personality. This too would mean that the Big Five Theory is more an artifact of language and culture than a true description of personality.

It is further interesting that four of the dichotomies have strong correlations to 4 of the Factors (Neuroticism was explicitly left out because the Myers-Briggs community wanted to use the understanding of personality to help people work together and understand themselves and others). Of course, the Big Five factors are not the MBTI dichotomies in disguise, they are quite different. However, perhaps it can be taken as evidence that the scaffolding on which the MBTI was developed, the theory itself, has some validity.

Getting to the "Core" of People's Personalities

Ultimately, so far, we have talked about adjectives…traits that people have. We can alternatively look at verbs, what people do. This would lead to behavioral descriptions of people. But really, both trait-based and behavioral descriptions are at a surface level. They don't delve deeper.

Behavioral models are quite useful, but behaviorsm is too limiting. I believe there are actually things underneath, driving us, defining our needs, and determining the themes of our lives. I think a good theory of personality should attempt to get at this core.

I also believe we are not "tabular rasa" but are born with some innate tendencies. These tendencies in-turn color our interactions with the environment, while the environment shapes our personalities further.

To this end, I really like the approaches that the theories of Temperament and Interaction Syles use. They look at traits and behaviors and use that evidence to get a good idea of what is diving people, defining their needs, etc.

Of course circumstances and environmental factors will change what traits people develop, but I believe there are almost always enough clues on the surface (for Temperaments and Interaction Styles) to piece together the core.

Temperament

As far as Myers-Briggs related temperaments, there are 4 of them. They can be called different things based on who is describing them.

I'll give the descriptions of all 4 temperaments, along with the core needs of that temperament:

• Artisans(SPs) are often epicurian, spontaneous, restless, entertaining, impulsive, present oriented, fast-reacting, risk-taking, improvising, and cynical. They often like seizing opportunities, making an impact, using colloquial language, and telling stories. They are often good at tactics, variation, contextual thinking, promoting, adapting, and performing. Often, they make skilled troubleshooters, negotiators, operators, and players. They usually value action, skilled performance, variety, fraternal relationships, excitement, stimulation, aesthetics, and immediate adventure. Their core needs are the freedom to act on impulses and the ability to make an impact.
• Guardians(SJs) are often economical, structured, dependable, appraising, meticulous, past oriented, cautious, careful, responsible, standardizing, fatalistic, and authority centered. They often like stabilizing organizations, using customary language, and making comparisons. They are often good at logistics, measurement, sequential thinking, supervising, protecting, and providing. Often they make skilled stabilizers, monitors, and conservators. They usually value security, hierarchical procedures, stability, group relationships, rules, regulations, conformity, and the preservation of social groups. Their core needs are having a place of belonging and meeting the responsibilities of a duty.
• Rationals(NTs) are often theoretical, cold, logical, oblivious, critiquing, perfectionistic, infinite-time oriented, problem-solving, analytical, inventing, and skeptical. They often like forming hypotheses, gaining knowledge, using precise language, and thinking in conditionals. They are often good at strategy, analysis, differential thinking, marshaling, designing, and categorizing. Often they make skilled visionaries, directors, engineers, and inventors. They usually value intelligence, scientific inquiry, logical consistency, expert relationships, concepts, ideas, progress, ultimate truths, and theories. Their core needs are gaining knowledge, competence, mastery, and self-control.
• Idealists(NFs) are often spiritual, warm-hearted, involved, praising, impressionistic, future oriented, inspiring, empathic, imagining, credulous, and relationship centered. They often like creating harmony, using global language, and thinking in metaphors. They are often good at diplomacy, interpretation, integrative thinking, counseling, revealing, and facilitating. Often they make skilled catalysts, mentors, foreseers, and advocates. They usually value self-actualization, cooperative interaction, unity, empathic relationships, ethics, morality, authenticity, and an ideal or meaningful world. Their core needs are having a unique identity of meaning and significance.

Although our core needs are, in a way, invisible, the way to tell what they are is my looking at what gives you energy and vitality as opposed to draining you of life and energy. If your core needs are being met, you will be full of life, when they are not being met, you will be drained of life.

Interaction Styles

There are four interaction styles to complement the four temperaments. Each temperament has one type for each of the 4 interaction styles, and each interaction style has one type for each temperament.

• Get-Things-going Style(ESFs and ENPs) People who like to get things going tend to be energetic, animated, gregarious, expressive, enthusiastic, engaging, persuasive and casual. They have talents for making preparations, discovering new ways of seeing things, sharing insights, exploring options, facilitating, catalyzing, energizing, brainstorming, and persuading. They have an urgent need to involve people, and aim to get an embraced result. Their core belief is that it's worth the energy to involve everyone and get them to want to do what needs to be done. They have faith that whatever emerges form the interaction will move people forward.
• Behind-the-Scenes Style(ISFs and INPs) People who like to be behind the scenes tend to be quiet, agreeable, friendly, approachable, unassuming, accommodating, conscientious, and patient. They have talents for supporting others, defining specifications, clarifying values, producing high quality results, searching for commonalities, encouraging participation, reconciling inconsistencies, and sustaining effort. They have a pressing need to integrate things, and aim to get the best result possible. Their core belief is that it is worth the time to integrate and reconcile many inputs. They have faith that people can make it al work out in the end.
• In-Charge Style(ESTs and ENJs) People who like to be in charge tend to be energetic, confident, composed, in control, commanding, straightforward, decisive, and sociable. They have talents for supervising, mobilizing resources, mentoring, executing actions, leading to a goal, actualizing a vision, accomplishing through people, and providing resources. They have an urgent need to accomplish tasks and aim to get an achievable result. Their core belief is that it is worth the risk to go ahead and decide or act. They have faith that people can control whatever happens.
• Chart-the-Course Style(ISTs and INJs) people who like to char the course tend to be quiet, informative, reserved, intense, calm, private, planful, and focused. They have talents for outlining/planning agendas/logistics, conceptualizing end results, foreseeing how people will respond, figuring out what needs to be done, monitoring progress, illuminating, devising a plan, and giving guidance. They have a pressing need to anticipate things and aim to get a desired result. Their core belief is that it is worth the effort to think ahead to reach the goal. They have faith in their process to get where they want to go.

Types, Archetypes, Functions
There are many other things that make our picture of personality much more rich and that are embraced by the Myer-Briggs community. For instance type flavors (independent vs. participative, mainstream vs. counterculture, global vs. local, hard vs. soft), and life themes (athletic, artistic, community, establishment, political, growth, academic, entrepreneurial). Multiple intelligences (verbal-linguistic, musical-rhythmic, visual-spatial, logical-mathematical, bodily-kinesthetic, naturalist, interpersonal, and intrapersonal), and preferred modalities for learning (Visual, Auditory, and Kinesthetic) make the picture still more rich. There is also family influence, career choice, cultural effect, and gender difference.

But to delve deeper into the subconscious and unconscious... I think function-attitudes (also known as just "functions") are important. I believe that Jung was onto something with archetypes(innate universal psychic dispositions that form the substrate from which the basic themes of human life emerge), and with Function-attitudes. For Jung there are two attitudes, introverted and extraverted, and for each of the attitudes, there are 4 possible functions, Sensing, iNtuition, Feeling, and Thinking, yielding 8 function-attitudes.

In Myers-Briggs typology two functions define a type…a primary function and an auxiliary function. In healthy individuals, the two functions should have opposite attitudes. In addition one should be a judging function (either thinking or feeling) and the other a perceiving function (either sensing or intuition).

I believe the top two cognitive functions do indeed determine type, and are important to understand for growth…i.e. I believe Isabel Myers's extrapolation of Jung's work was reasonably sound. However, unless obvious, I don't believe it is easy to type people directly with functions.

I believe John Beebe was onto something with Archetypal Complexes, and that Linda Berens was tracking the same something with the "lasagna model".

The model is as follows:

1. Hero / Heroine (superior or dominant function)
2. Father / Mother (auxiliary function)
3. Puer / Puella (tertiary function)
4. Anima / Animus (inferior function)
5. Opposing Personality (same function as #1 but with opposite attitude)
6. Senex / Witch (same function as #2 but with opposite attitude)
7. Trickster (same function as #3 but with opposite attitude)
8. Demonic Personality (same function as #4 but with opposite attitude)

I also believe Lenore Thomson was onto something with the tertiary temptation as well. The tertiary temptation occurs when we rely on our tertiary function which has the same attitude as our primary, creating an imbalance of attitude and leading to unhealthy mode if engaged in for a long period of time.

Links:
Forer effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Johari window - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Big Five personality traits - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Understanding yourself and others ... - Google Books
Understanding Yourself and Others ... - Google Books
Multiple intelligences & personality ... - Google Books
Visual Auditory Kinesthetic Learning Styles
http://www.darionardi.com/CHARpaper.html
Jungian archetypes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Evolving the Eight-Function Model (by John Beebe) : Type Insights
Tertiary Temptation

There is a lot of valid information in this thread.

Myers and Briggs is all right. However, they are not John and Linda.
I have nothing against John and Linda per se. They are insightful people I am sure.

Does understanding entail work?
Not in the procedure.
Understanding entails preparatory work only.
In the process of understanding, work is an impediment.

You or I do not work the pieces out.
The pieces come together all by themselves.

Rule is not a preliminary.
It is an accomodation only.

The tertiary is not a pack in the parcel at all.
It is on the other side of the medial point.

 

[Valuable_Money]

There is a lot of valid information in this thread.

Myers and Briggs is all right. However, they are not John and Linda.
I have nothing against John and Linda per se. They are insightful people I am sure.

Does understanding entail work?
Not in the procedure.
Understanding entails preparatory work only.
In the process of understanding, work is an impediment.

You or I do not work the pieces out.
The pieces come together all by themselves.

Rule is not a preliminary.
It is an accomodation only.

The tertiary is not a pack in the parcel at all.
It is on the other side of the medial point.

I like this person, he answers in verse.

WhatshisfacetheotherguymrIdontlikeMBTI will have to get alot more poetic if hes going to convince me.

 

[ygolo]

There is a lot of valid information in this thread.

Myers and Briggs is all right. However, they are not John and Linda.
I have nothing against John and Linda per se. They are insightful people I am sure.

Does understanding entail work?
Not in the procedure.
Understanding entails preparatory work only.
In the process of understanding, work is an impediment.

You or I do not work the pieces out.
The pieces come together all by themselves.

Rule is not a preliminary.
It is an accomodation only.

The tertiary is not a pack in the parcel at all.
It is on the other side of the medial point.

What about Dario?

The pieces may come together all by themselves, but there is value in taking them apart and putting them back together. It deepens understanding.

Rule is not preliminary, but the truth it attempts to describe is.

What of the temptation then, if the tertiary is on the other side of the medial point?


--------

I think we have rehashed the debate on validity and cultism and so on quite enough. This is a forum that has typology in its name. We are studying a system for what it is.

People have different uses for it. I have seen it used for good effect plenty of times in work situations, and edcoahing's examples drive the point home even more.

The point, first, is to do no harm. The next point is to use the system to broaden perspective in specified ways. The final point is to aid individuals' in growth, the same way that thinking about the superego, id, and ego does. That's what I think about it.

Psychoanalysis is not scientific in the modern sense, but it can nevertheless still be useful. That is why psychoanalists are sometimes praised by the American Psychiatric Association.

 

[Valuable_Money]

What about Dario?

The pieces may come together all by themselves, but there is value in taking them apart and putting them back together. It deepens understanding.

Rule is not preliminary, but the truth it attempts to describe is.

What of the temptation then, if the tertiary is on the other side of the medial point?


--------

More poetics

 

[Heart&Brain]

This may perhaps have been asked before but, cult of what?

Or does this cult perhaps have no nefarious purpose, it's just that it is base and pedestrian and not at all spiritual?

Yes, + 1!

I enjoy that MBTI is pragmatic to the core and descriptive rather than prescriptive. Contrary to religion, it harbours little to none moralistic judgment, allowing human differences to flourish instead of oppressing them in the name of some 'higher meaning'.

There is no higher meaning in MBTI. There is no supernatural creator above and before this world, there's no eternal moral law demanding obedience, there's no world beyond this world. Yay to that!

Indeed, not attempting to legimise itself through idiotic claims of some eternal, godly origin, its legitimacy depends openly only on its descriptive usefulness to our understanding of self and others. It'll meet its limits often and then I, and others, will use other conceptual models to proceed.

To paraphrase Gilles Deleuze: a concept should be evaluated according to the greatness of the events of the world that it makes us able to grasp in an interesting way. No revelations, no eternal correspondence, no supernatural entities begging to turn off reason and turn on blind faith.

Of course, this radical pragmatism is likely to piss off people fetishising 'spirituality'. Well... religious folks are easily pissed off, what can I say?


PS. Btw, Victor, if you can show me BY WAY OF THEORETICAL CONTENT AND FOUNDATION how the conceptual framework of MBTI supports a global capitalist + military industrial ideology, I'm very interested. I'm serious, and in that case I'd share your reservations. Only so far, I can't really see how MBTI in itself would be incompatible with or downright work against systemic criticisms of global economic alienation or military manipulation.
But I'm eager to see the interpretation of MBTI as a late-capitalist tool for subtle indoctrination. I don't like to overlook conceptual consequences. Especially not if concepts turn out to be carriers of hidden agendas of manipulative ideologies.

 

[matmos]

This is a forum that has typology in its name. We are studying a system for what it is.

And it is a business first and foremost.

Indeed the forum has typology in it's name, if only because the propriators of the MBTI (TM) trademark refuse to have their intellectual property sullied by the kind of threads and postings frequently found at, ahem, Typology Central.

 

[ygolo]

But I'm eager to see the interpretation of MBTI as a late-capitalist tool for subtle indoctrination. I don't like to overlook conceptual consequences. Especially not if concepts turn out to be carriers of hidden agendas of manipulative ideologies.

And it is a business first and foremost.

Indeed the forum has typology in it's name, if only because the propriators of the MBTI (TM) trademark refuse to have their intellectual property sullied by the kind of threads and postings frequently found at, ahem, Typology Central.

The charge that something is "a business first and foremost" is a charge you can level at many things...including industrial research in device physics. What are the implications you can draw about that?

The fact of the matter is that things need money to operate. The money is obtained through business, government, or charity. Very few things run on charity alone.

Academia (which is mostly government funded) has its own faults. Sometimes, even, academics resent their colleagues in industry. Leveling charges similar to the ones parroted here.

As far as I know, this site is an outgrowth of sites designed for people of similar MBTI types to congregate and socialize. This site being a place for all types to congregate and socialize--hardly something that should be linked officially to the MBTI instrument.

Nevertheless, there is a background of Myers-Briggs related discussion. Look at how the forum is organized.

 

[Kalach]

if you can show me BY WAY OF THEORETICAL CONTENT AND FOUNDATION how the conceptual framework of MBTI supports a global capitalist + military industrial ideology, I'm very interested. I'm serious, and in that case I'd share your reservations.

One presumes that as a tool applied from outside the person, MBTI is the next best thing to a tattooed barcode. Even if used by the individual as a tool for personal investigation, there is the risk of rectification, the sin of understanding your essence to have been adequately labelled and therefore in no further need of inspection. The kiddies will be taught to look no further than their test results. They can be slotted into their appropriate career and tut-tutted at when they make bids for freedom.

As for further discussion of MBTI as a systematic model, my own thoughts on Meyers-Briggs float around "preference." So far as I have seen discussed, "preference" is a primitive notion. I also don't know what Jung had to say on the concept. However, for MBTI to become scientific or verifiable in some way, or even just to become more satisfying than any other pragmatic classification system, what's needed is a discussion on, or a discovery of, the origin of preference.

 

[entropie]

Jung came from a time all people in a town lived a sort of masquerade behind traditions, norms and morales. A real human being with errors or imperfections wasnt accepted at that time by society. So society evolved around their "good mannerisms" masquerade and people became so foreign to each other they had issues to bond or even suspected each other of not being a moral person.

If you read the book "Der Steppenwolf" by Hermann Hesse you get an idea, but beware the entrance fee is your mind.

Nowadays it seems people are on a journey to the individual self again, but not because circumstances made it necessary. I guess societies development of putting a lot of weight into meritocracy and favouring the best and brightest only will further this journey until a point of critical mass, when circumstances can become an issue again.

 

[wildcat]

What about Dario?

The pieces may come together all by themselves, but there is value in taking them apart and putting them back together. It deepens understanding.

Rule is not preliminary, but the truth it attempts to describe is.

What of the temptation then, if the tertiary is on the other side of the medial point?


--------

I think we have rehashed the debate on validity and cultism and so on quite enough. This is a forum that has typology in its name. We are studying a system for what it is.

People have different uses for it. I have seen it used for good effect plenty of times in work situations, and edcoahing's examples drive the point home even more.

The point, first, is to do no harm. The next point is to use the system to broaden perspective in specified ways. The final point is to aid individuals' in growth, the same way that thinking about the superego, id, and ego does. That's what I think about it.

Psychoanalysis is not scientific in the modern sense, but it can nevertheless still be useful. That is why psychoanalists are sometimes praised by the American Psychiatric Association.

I have not read Dario.
What about Sacks?

What about the temptation as the tertiary is on the other side?
A good question.

Where is the shadow?
What does it do?
How does it come by?

 

[matmos]

The charge that something is "a business first and foremost" is a charge you can level at many things...including industrial research in device physics. What are the implications you can draw about that?

The fact of the matter is that things need money to operate. The money is obtained through business, government, or charity. Very few things run on charity alone.

Academia (which is mostly government funded) has its own faults. Sometimes, even, academics resent their colleagues in industry. Leveling charges similar to the ones parroted here.

As far as I know, this site is an outgrowth of sites designed for people of similar MBTI types to congregate and socialize. This site being a place for all types to congregate and socialize--hardly something that should be linked officially to the MBTI instrument.

Nevertheless, there is a background of Myers-Briggs related discussion. Look at how the forum is organized.

Parroted is the work of parrots. Consider your statement.

With all corporate business the transaction is an economic one: we have a buyer and a seller. We can have a lemon or a peach. Wrap it up how you like and make comparisons with research or academia.

But you must know deep down that making any comparison between MBTI and, say, "industrial research" by stating irrelevant commonalities, such as funding, is deeply fallacious.

My point was that it's a business and it works like a business. Is your retort: so what, there's alot of decent businessmen out there? Mine would be: there's alot of charlatans as well. How exactly do you make a distinction? You do not, Ygolo. You leave that to me, when, of course, that's your business as the supplier, not mine as the consumer. Effectively, you are saying, " Prove my Miracle Gro (TM) does not work". My reply to you would be that I have enough shit in the garden and your Miracle Gro is irrelevant.

Who's the parrot, you or me?

 

[Mole]

We are pattern recognising animals.

But even more, we need pattern to function.

So we prefer any pattern to no pattern.

But since the Enlightenment we have learnt that there are patterns which correspond to nature and those that don't.

And we use empirical testing to determine which patterns correspond and which don't.

For instance, astrology, alchemy, eugenics, Lysenkoism, phrenology, the Exodus and MBTI don't correspond to nature. In other words, empirical testing shows they are untrue.

But we are still carried away with our own facility for pattern recognition and our own wish that they were true.

In our vanity we mistake our wishes for reality.

But even the Ancient Greeks knew that hubris is followed by nemesis.