• 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.

Folk Typology

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
So we've been debating over the dynamics of the functions, and the term "folk typology" has been coined by Solitary Walker in regard to both some of the statements SimulatedWorld has made, and some of the things Simulated World has been criticizing, such as an ENFP who does something logical "using Ti", as well as ignorant statements about the functions, such as in the Fi debates.
(Since both member's names would be abbreviated "SW", I'll have to revert to "BW" for Solitary; aka/fka "BlueWing").
Some of us are wondering where exactly BW is coming from. He is in a way like US religious fundamentalists who are "known more for what they are against, than what they are for". He's mentioned "Neo-Beebeans", and I wonder who exactly he means by that.

I can only imagine people like Berens, who is the one with the most well known publications that describe the Beebe model of the archetypes. Mark Hunziker (Building Blocks of Type and VTWellness site) also mentions them. Then you have Nardi and Hartzler who have books on the eight processes, but they don't really go into the archetypes. Other than that, there is another school of thought, closely aligned with these theorists, whom I have referred to as "Hyper-Beebean", which emphasizes the archetypes heavily, but makes the eight processes associated with them into hard entities that do not seem to allow for the complexities of individuals, and ignores the archetypes as being complexes within the ego, and the notion of undifferentiated functions. So this is actually where we get claims such as any manifestation of enthusiasm or emotion being Fi or Fe.
Meanwhile, as T/F is overemphasized, I/E and J/P become almost meaningless as nothing more than "dominant or extraverted function attitude", (based on some later quote of Jung) and you end up with stuff like "introverted extraverts" and saying a person uses "too much" Te or Fi to be a TP type. It's sort of like the opposite extreme of ENFP's claiming to use Ti because they did something logical. Instead of starting with the type and then making an exception of the function being used, you mine behavior for a particular function (defined by such "key words" as "valuing", "considering", "arranging", etc) and then assign a type accordingly.

It seems this system was very influential, even on this site earlier on. The key-word system is based largely on Berens.
So as much as people criticize either "folk typology" or whatever else you may call the "general layman's" use of the concepts, we are all still influenced by it, (especially in treating the eight functions as so monolithic, for instance). It's like we are all grappling to find out what is the most correct expression of the theory, or what is real or not. So it would be good if the site would be a place to get a good understanding of the theories in discussion (and perhaps ultimately serve to gain more respect for the theory) rather than just a place where misunderstandings are passed around.

The other person who references Beebe's model is Lenore Thomson, and she has her own semi-archetype system, with a different order, based on a ship crew analogy. She also aims to clarify Beebe's model, and point it back to its Jungian moorings.
So I can't imagine her being classed in this "folk typology" group. Her brain lateralization theory seems to attempt to tie type theory to neuroscience, and if that works out, I could see it gaining typology or at least Jungian cognitive theory more respect in the science field!


So I'm just curious as to who or what exactly this "folk typology" embodies, and I'm curious as to BW's view of Beebe and his archetypes (is that indelibly apart of "folk typology" or is it only people's misinterpretation of him?). Is Myers-Briggs version of the theory itself the root of folk typology? (Since many people do criticize it; think Socionics or even "Jack Flak's system" is better, the test is imperfect and only 65% accurate, etc). And what can we all to to overcome and avoid the "FT" trap, or improve our understanding? Is BW aiming to be a pure Jungian? I think he kind of denied that recently, when asked why he uses the MBTI code which is not from Jung.
But is Jung seen as the best source; and who else, (if any) is?

I think this whole subject of "folk typology" deserves discussion. What does everyone else think of it?
 

VagrantFarce

Active member
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
1,558
I think the phrase "folk typology" (when it's not being callously used as a way of dismissing a person as "stupid" or "wrong") is used specifically to describe the popular notion of what the functions are - i.e. Berens' presentation of discrete functions, describing them as skill-sets wherein human behaviour can be neatly divided into eight categories of thought. Stuff like the cognitive functions test - which is usually the next step people take after exhausting traditional MBTI tests - helps perpetuate this sort of thinking. I imagine she presents it like this because it's management-friendly, and it seems she's made a career out of consulting.

I'm not convinced that the functions can be considered as such - it allows people to treat them as separate from their own behaviour, and in a way allows them to "construct" a new identity without having to take an honest look at themselves (something that I think is made more complicated by Berens' popularity on the internet, where people are free to construct new identities all the time on discussion forums). "Hmm, I like how Fi makes me sounds idealistic and nice - that must be me!" or "I like how Te makes me sounds organised and in control - that must be me!" I just don't think they help illustrate how people actually behave or think.

I also think that the shadow functions don't help illustrate the reality of things either. :) I like the archetype system, in that it's an easily digestible way of understanding what roles the functions play in relation to each other, but I just don't see what the shadow functions are actually representing - they just seem like an excuse to "include" the four remaining functions for each type.

I like how Thomson approaches and describes the functions - as warring perspectives - but I don't agree with her idea that everyone has "back-up" functions, again seeming like an excuse to include the four functions left out of each type.

At the end of the day, the only real barometer I can use to gauge the validity of these ideas are my own experiences - and so anything that confirms what I've experienced, and what I observe not only in myself but in other people around me, tends to be what I agree with. :)
 

edcoaching

New member
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
752
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
7
  • I think Berens would be very surprised to hear her writing about the functions described as 'skill sets." A much better description of the way she and Nardi talk about them (and I know both of them really well) would be cognitive functions, of which some come more naturally than others. For the less natural ones, we can develop skills that allow us to access the gifts of that function. That to me is very different from a skill set. And while some people on this forum have a knee-jerk reaction to anything mentioning behaviors, while behaviors can be controlled or influenced, decades of field research still demonstrates patterns to the behaviors shown by people with different whole types. "Every ENFP is like all ENFPs is like no other ENFP" is one way to put this.
  • Beebe's and Thomson's models are well-respected within the type community (people who use type theory professionally, whether as consultants, counselors, educators, spiritual directors...). One of them speaks at almost every conference--you can do a webinar with Beebe at Type Resources in the near future. But many who have done extensive research do not believe those models fit everyone.
  • There are a lot of practitioners who don't care about improving the theory but instead care about improving practice. What type-related activities/processes/discussions will lead educators to meet the needs of more students? What coaching techniques will help executives further their careers AND become leaders their employees actually want to follow? How can type help couples embrace their differences and find fulfillmet in a relationship? Theory is the starting place; putting the theory to use is what matters to them.
 

Jeffster

veteran attention whore
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
6,743
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx
If "folk typology" is observing people's behavior patterns and using my knowledge of those common patterns to improve my relationships with those people, then I say THREE CHEERS FOR FOLK TYPOLOGY!
 

VagrantFarce

Active member
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
1,558
  • I think Berens would be very surprised to hear her writing about the functions described as 'skill sets." A much better description of the way she and Nardi talk about them (and I know both of them really well) would be cognitive functions, of which some come more naturally than others. For the less natural ones, we can develop skills that allow us to access the gifts of that function. That to me is very different from a skill set. And while some people on this forum have a knee-jerk reaction to anything mentioning behaviors, while behaviors can be controlled or influenced, decades of field research still demonstrates patterns to the behaviors shown by people with different whole types. "Every ENFP is like all ENFPs is like no other ENFP" is one way to put this.

Regardless of her intent, I think a lot of amateur practitioners still think of them in terms of skillsets or tools, or just huge, discrete generalisations.

Maybe this is more what "folk typology" is all about:

  • "I have a high F because I'm sensitive"
  • "I have a high J because I find it hard to deal with new experiences"
  • "I have a high I because I'm not loud or gregarious and I don't go out and get pissed every night"
Going even further...

  • "I use Te because I meet deadlines and can follow a schedule"
  • "I use Fe because I'm nice to people and say 'please' and 'thank you'"
  • "I use Fi because I'm sensitive"
  • "I use Ti because I'm good at mathematics"
  • "I use Si because I have a good memory"
  • "I use Ni/Ne because I'm imaginative"
  • "I use Se because I do a lot of sport"
None of this, in my opinion, reflects what the types and functions are able to illustrate so effectively (in fact, I bet many of these function misunderstandings and generalisations can be traced back to that fucking cognitive functions test! :laugh: ). The types (and the four functions that make up each one) say so much about how we instinctively perceive, process and interact with the world - it's kind of sad to see people treat them as abstract "tools" separate from their own, actual personality.
 

edcoaching

New member
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
752
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
7
Maybe this is more what "folk typology" is all about:

  • "I have a high F because I'm sensitive"
  • "I have a high J because I find it hard to deal with new experiences"
  • "I have a high I because I'm not loud or gregarious and I don't go out and get pissed every night"
Going even further...

  • "I use Te because I meet deadlines and can follow a schedule"
  • "I use Fe because I'm nice to people and say 'please' and 'thank you'"
  • "I use Fi because I'm sensitive"
  • "I use Ti because I'm good at mathematics"
  • "I use Si because I have a good memory"
  • "I use Ni/Ne because I'm imaginative"
  • "I use Se because I do a lot of sport"
None of this, in my opinion, reflects what the types and functions are able to illustrate so effectively (in fact, I bet many of these function misunderstandings and generalisations can be traced back to that fucking cognitive functions test! :laugh: ). The types (and the four functions that make up each one) say so much about how we instinctively perceive, process and interact with the world - it's kind of sad to see people treat them as abstract "tools" separate from their own, actual personality.

Well, then we're in agreement. Just don't mix up Berens with "amateurs" who don't understand that at least on the "real" MBTI scores say nothing about skill or strength of preference, just how clear you are that you indeed prefer that side of the dichotomy.

The problem comes when amateurs mix up preferences and traits. You can't be "high Se" in a preference in the way you're described by Myers. Probably the very best descriptions out there are by Gordon Lawrence who asked at least 100 people of each type to choose the core from which they operate. His "Descriptions of the 16 Types" avoids ALL behavior-based descriptors. The booklet isn't free but it's cheap at CAPT: Training, Books, Research for MBTI, Archetypes, Leadership, Psychological Type.. He also lines up the opposite whole types on teh same page so people immediately see that these aren't horoscopes but qualitatively different ways of perceiving and judging.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I think the phrase "folk typology" (when it's not being callously used as a way of dismissing a person as "stupid" or "wrong") is used specifically to describe the popular notion of what the functions are - i.e. Berens' presentation of discrete functions, describing them as skill-sets wherein human behaviour can be neatly divided into eight categories of thought. Stuff like the cognitive functions test - which is usually the next step people take after exhausting traditional MBTI tests - helps perpetuate this sort of thinking. I imagine she presents it like this because it's management-friendly, and it seems she's made a career out of consulting.

I'm not convinced that the functions can be considered as such - it allows people to treat them as separate from their own behaviour, and in a way allows them to "construct" a new identity without having to take an honest look at themselves (something that I think is made more complicated by Berens' popularity on the internet, where people are free to construct new identities all the time on discussion forums). "Hmm, I like how Fi makes me sounds idealistic and nice - that must be me!" or "I like how Te makes me sounds organised and in control - that must be me!" I just don't think they help illustrate how people actually behave or think.
Yeah; BW did describe some "folk typologists" as setting things up like that so that people would say "that's me"! I didn't really get that sense either from Berens books or Nardi's test. I took it all as simple descriptors so you could get a basic idea of the functions. It worked for the perception functions: Se-what is, Si- what was, Ne-What could be, Ni- what will be, though now I'm seeing that in this last case, it doesn't really give you the essence of Ni.
Yet I can clearly see that this "key word" method has been pushed beyond its useful limits by many interpreters, and now Berens & co. (sometimes including even Beebe himself) seem to be getting the blame for "folk typology" and reducing it all down to "skiils sets". Again, I took the "skills" listed as examples to give you an overal portrait of what the function preference (or temperament, Interaction Style, etc) was like.
I also think that the shadow functions don't help illustrate the reality of things either. :) I like the archetype system, in that it's an easily digestible way of understanding what roles the functions play in relation to each other, but I just don't see what the shadow functions are actually representing - they just seem like an excuse to "include" the four remaining functions for each type.

I like how Thomson approaches and describes the functions - as warring perspectives - but I don't agree with her idea that everyone has "back-up" functions, again seeming like an excuse to include the four functions left out of each type.
Again, the shadows are simply repressed from the consciousness. There doesn't need to be any "excuse" to "include" them. Why wouldn't they exist for the person? I believe the reason they were left out of the older MBTI four process theory is because it was not decided what role they would play. the theory was basically being developed as time went on. Like they originally thought the tertiary followed the opposite orientation from the dominant, like the auxiliary and inferior. Then, it was realized it was really in the same orientation (and when was once thought to be the tertiary, now lied in the unconscious, like the opposite orientation of the auxiliary and inferior). So bith Beebe and Thomson have expanded the theory to include the roles of the "other four" (which are really suppressed attitudes of the first four). And it seems to fit my experience, and others I see (even if they might not be conscious of it, which is likely).

[*]Beebe's and Thomson's models are well-respected within the type community (people who use type theory professionally, whether as consultants, counselors, educators, spiritual directors...). One of them speaks at almost every conference--you can do a webinar with Beebe at Type Resources in the near future. But many who have done extensive research do not believe those models fit everyone.

I would love to do those, but it's $1295 for the whole series ($195 each). Are those really designed for classroom or group study type settings, where I would be presenting it to several people, who would split the cost?
 

edcoaching

New member
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
752
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
7
Like they originally thought the tertiary followed the opposite orientation from the dominant, like the auxiliary and inferior. Then, it was realized it was really in the same orientation (and when was once thought to be the tertiary, now lied in the unconscious, like the opposite orientation of the auxiliary and inferior). So bith Beebe and Thomson have expanded the theory to include the roles of the "other four" (which are really suppressed attitudes of the first four). And it seems to fit my experience, and others I see (even if they might not be conscious of it, which is likely).
Actually the attitude of the third function is still very much up in the air. I'm on the side of "It depends." Qualitative research indicates that it may depend on the person's experiences/education/occupation/interests since we're talking "2nd half of life" development. It's an ongoing theory/research project.

I would love to do those, but it's $1295 for the whole series ($195 each). Are those really designed for classroom or group study type settings, where I would be presenting it to several people, who would split the cost?
Is it really? Sometimes Beebe presents at local type associations and the fees are reasonable (that's just the way the market works).
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Actually the attitude of the third function is still very much up in the air. I'm on the side of "It depends." Qualitative research indicates that it may depend on the person's experiences/education/occupation/interests since we're talking "2nd half of life" development. It's an ongoing theory/research project.
Lenore really made it make sense for me. The tertiary would default to the opposite attitude (because the ego chooses its dominant attitude along with the function, and the other functions and orientation are altogether suppressed). However, it is the Puer complex (not function) that orients the tertiary function to the dominant attitude; hence, the "tertiary temptation".

To keep it on topic; I believe this sort of understanding is part of the antidote for "folk typology".
Then, even Beebe is said to suggest functions 3 and 7 (child, trickster) developing close together. The actual order would be 1,2,3,7,4,5,8,6. So that also could explain what appears to be the tertiary function being the opposite orientation. For the 7th is the 3rd in the opposite orientation.

Is it really?
Yeah; it's right on that CAPT site you linked!
Sometimes Beebe presents at local type associations and the fees are reasonable (that's just the way the market works).
I wonder if those are advertized on the site.
 

edcoaching

New member
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
752
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
7
Lenore really made it make sense for me. The tertiary would default to the opposite attitude (because the ego chooses its dominant attitude along with the function, and the other functions and orientation are altogether suppressed). However, it is the Puer complex (not function) that orients the tertiary function to the dominant attitude; hence, the "tertiary temptation".

To keep it on topic; I believe this sort of understanding is part of the antidote for "folk typology".
Then, even Beebe is said to suggest functions 3 and 7 (child, trickster) developing close together. The actual order would be 1,2,3,7,4,5,8,6. So that also could explain what appears to be the tertiary function being the opposite orientation. For the 7th is the 3rd in the opposite orientation.
Mmmm, but you're relying on the theoretical as an antidote for "folk typology", not reality. Dario Nardi's brain research, for example, has strong indications that the tertiary is in the same attitude as the dominant. Autobiographical research by others is showing that it differs for different people. Beebe's model, helpful as it is, is based on his own development as I understand it. Other outstanding theorists who have attended his 4-day-workshops/understand it thoroughly disagree with its rigidity.

Yeah; it's right on that CAPT site you linked! I wonder if those are advertized on the site.
You can find listings of the happenings at all the local chapters (well, if they remember to submit them) at the region/chapter page at APTinternational. And then you can bookmark to the chapters closest to you. Minneapolis, for example, has Gregg Husczco coming 2/27, one of the best management/OD people out there.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Mmmm, but you're relying on the theoretical as an antidote for "folk typology", not reality. Dario Nardi's brain research, for example, has strong indications that the tertiary is in the same attitude as the dominant. Autobiographical research by others is showing that it differs for different people.
Oh, I didn't know Nardi did brain research. I associate brain research with Lenore. Maybe there's some connection.
Beebe's model, helpful as it is, is based on his own development as I understand it. Other outstanding theorists who have attended his 4-day-workshops/understand it thoroughly disagree with its rigidity.
I know it seems rigid the way some people have interpreted it. It has been hard to find a lot of info from he himself. There are several articles online (three from CCC-APT).
 

edcoaching

New member
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
752
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
7
Dario's a prof at UCLA. He teaches about type and temperament in one of his anthropology classes. Students from those classes have volunteered to get wired up in his brain lab. They're all top, top students and their types have been verified. The differences among the types as they perform the same tasks are very, very striking. He's presented on it at several conferences and will keynote on it at APTinternational 2011 conference in San Francisco. Hopefully by then some ISTP students will be willing to spend a Saturday in the lab to complete his sample set...research is never easy...

Beebe hasn't written it all up but he loves doing the 4-day workshop where only 3 people of each type come so that the discussions are in-depth. You'll find a few summaries in the newsletters at Type Resources Bob McAlpine has sponsored several of his seminars and may be second only to Beebe in grasping the model.
 

edcoaching

New member
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
752
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
7
I'd say you need to do more research.

I found her book, but a power search of all academic databases reveals nothing. The articles at her website are unpublished. This doesn't mean the research is invalid, just that she hasn't subjected it to peer review.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
So we've been debating over the dynamics of the functions, and the term "folk typology" has been coined by Solitary Walker in regard to both some of the statements SimulatedWorld has made, and some of the things Simulated World has been criticizing, such as an ENFP who does something logical "using Ti", as well as ignorant statements about the functions, such as in the Fi debates.?

Thank you for bringing folk 'typology' to the attention of the forum, hopefully more of our thoughtful members shall become aware of my contention. Please see my discussion with simulatedworld in the post below for a clarification regarding the term definition of 'folk typology'.

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/1065694-post51.html

To dispell further confusions and complications inflicted upon the term by gossipers and propagandists, I'll render the definition clear and simple one more time. Folk typology is a method of drawing inferences about people or human nature that has no grounding in rational thought or authoritative research. In most cases, people who indulge in a superficial, unempirical, behavioristic study of the subject are branded folk typologists. Simulatedworld once asked if that is the definition of folk typology and the answer was a definitive 'no'. A folk typologist could be an occultist who believes that his tarrot card games lead to important insights about people. Although many folk typologists of this site have a strong behavioristic thrust, there is no reason to conclude that anyone who abuses the enterprise is a behaviorist.



I'll discuss the conceptual background in which the mordacious 'folk typology' epithet has emerged. Hopefully this will bring clarity to my method of doing typology.


Typology can be used interchangeably with personality theory; it is the activity of discovering character features of people and underlining how they differ from the fundamental traits of other individuals. On that note, similarly to MBTI, OCEAN AND Enneagram are typological systems.

However, many interpretations and applications of many personality series do not meet the standard of rigorous scientific inquiry or even less critical conceptual scrutiny. Modern psychologists who are working in the personality theory typically provide a great deal of empirical support for their conclusions. They actively perform experiments that involve observations of many people from different cultural and social backgrounds. When they make a conjecture about a person's nature, they do not merely assume that because he or she engaged in a certain behavior, it follows that this person's core personality qualities compel them to behave in a way that they do. They are cognizant of the fact that the behavior could have been caused by a variety of circumstancial influences such as for example their social obligations, personal idiosyncrasies and so on. For this reason, the claim that carefully controlled empirical studies are necessary in order to corroborate conclusions about the nature of persons is regarded as a truism.

Many online expositions regarding MBTI and other personality theories lack such support and do not cite any research where the relevant empirical inquiry has been done. As a student of philosophy with no experience in scientific research, I found it impossible to contribute to the study of personality and was thereby confronted with a task of reconstructing typology to the end of creating a system that allows one to make insights into human nature without requiring empirical support.

The only way this goal could be accomplished is by removing typology from the study of persons. Essentially, the enterprise deals not with the qualities that people have, but rather with their cognitive tendencies. I do not need to study thousands of introverts to claim that they have a tendency to be overwhelmed by excessive interaction than extroverts. Similarly, I do not need to study thousands of intuitives to conclude that their minds are more easily stimulate to exercise imagination than that of sensors. However, I would indeed need to study hundreds if not thousands of people to determine how exactly they will behave in one particular situation or in order to determine the nature of some other qualities that are fundamental to their personality. For example, arm-chair reasoning could never tell me how likely a person is to be a criminal, an athlete, a college professor and so on. In effect, my reconstructed study of typology included a step away from personality theory and a step towards an inquiry into mere cognitive tendencies of people. The former does not purport to have deep insights into the nature of persons, yet the latter does and that is the salient distinction between my work on the subject and that of folk typologists. Although numerous legitimate and empirically supportable studies on personality theory have been performed, most forum members are unenlightened by the insights such studies have led to.

A conclusion on personality theory can be justified in one of the following two fashions.

1. Supported by the requisite empirical research.
2. Couched within the context of a study of cognitive tendencies or other phenomena that do not require empirical support.




Some of us are wondering where exactly BW is coming from. He is in a way like US religious fundamentalists who are "known more for what they are against, than what they are for"..?

Hopefully the explanation above has helped.

He's mentioned "Neo-Beebeans", and I wonder who exactly he means by that. "..?


In the context of the discussion that you seem to have in mind, the reference was made neither to Beebe himself or other eminent authors cited in your post. The 'Beebean Eight-function model' is commonly given the following folk typological interpretation. We have four functions that are our primary functions and the remaining four follow the exact sequence of the first four, however, their attitude changes. In other words, if they were introverted in the first group, they shall become extroverted in the second and vice versa. For example.

Ni
Te
Fi
Se
Ne
Ti
Fe
Si

Many followers of Beebe such as Lenor Thomson for example chose not to endorse that model and it is a mistake to suggest that every Neo-Bebean is a folk typologist. The caustic reference targeted only those who dogmatically adhered to the thesis that functions must proceed in that exact order. The assertion that they do follow the sequence listed above is not in itself problematic, but the dogmatic assertion that no other pattern is possible honors the 'folk' methodology that is most commonly seen in religious ideologies and spiritual mysticism.




It seems this system was very influential, even on this site earlier on. The key-word system is based largely on Berens.
So as much as people criticize either "folk typology" or whatever else you may call the "general layman's" use of the concepts, we are all still influenced by it, (especially in treating the eight functions as so monolithic, for instance)."..?


I see no reason why we must continue using these 'general layman's terms' when instead of saying that a person's type causes him to have a certain characteristic, we could say that at best it develops a tendency to develop the personality feature in question. For example, instead of asserting that Fe makes one display emotion, we should maintain that Fe is merely a tendency to activate one's emotive faculties in response to external stimulation rather than internal. As a result, in the context of the Western culture, people of this type are often inclined to develop personality features associated with being highly emotionally expressive. I am not suggesting that the entire enterprise of drawing connections between Jungian type and personality theory should be abandoned, but rather that typological entities should be interpreted as cognitive tendencies rather than ineradicable behavioral habits.

Embracing this method will help us avoid many conceptual confusions and misapplications of the system that unduly place people into vaguely defined arbitrary categories. For conceptual confusions resultant of folk typology, please see my essay on typology as a philosophical discipline.

http://www.typologycentral.com/foru.../23728-typology-philosophical-discipline.html




The other person who references Beebe's model is Lenore Thomson, and she has her own semi-archetype system, with a different order, based on a ship crew analogy. She also aims to clarify Beebe's model, and point it back to its Jungian mooringsv


The Jungian underpinnings of Thomson's system safeguards her work from the charge of folk typology.


So I can't imagine her being classed in this "folk typology" group. Her brain lateralization theory seems to attempt to tie type theory to neuroscience, and if that works out, I could see it gaining typology or at least Jungian cognitive theory more respect in the science field!)."..?

The question of how certain features of a person's brain influence him to engage in a specific set of behaviors is much more complicated than Thomson seems to believe. For one, it is not a scientific discovery that all behaviors that are linear and sequential have been inspired by the left hemisphere only and likewise, there is no scientific support for the assertion that all non-sequential behaviors where we tackle all things at once are supported by the right-hemisphere. Contemporary researchers are inclined to claim that both hemisphere are in an intimate partnership, to the point where it is difficult to claim that a certain faculty is right-brained or left brained only. For that reason, I doubt that this move will allow Mrs. Thomson to procure the support of neuroscientists and other researchers working in the study of the brain.

Furthermore, her assertion that Introverted Judging functions and right brained and that introverted perceiving faculties are left brained contravenes the Jungian principles that she has implicitly endorsed throughout her work. Unlike Keirsey, she did acknowledge the existence of functions and regarding the former as judging functions and the latter as perceiving. Predictably, she deemed extroverted judging functions as left brained and extroverted perceiving as right-brained because the former seemed to lead to sequential behaviors and the latter, respectively to non-sequential. She thereby identified judgment with left-brained activity and perception with right-brained. With this conceptual framework, it is impossible for her to assert that introverted judging faculties are right-brained and introverted perceiving functions are left-brained. I am apt to suspect that this is where Thomson's theory has been infected with a germ of Keirsey's typology who opined that Judgers or people whose strongest judging faculty is extroverted are generally sequential as well as organized and people whose prevalent extroverted function is a perceiving one are non-sequential as well as disorganized. Thomson's attempts to align her work with science achieved an outcome that was virtually the opposite of the one intended: she rendered her typology more remiscent of Keirsey than that of researchers who are committed to incorporating empirical methodology and discoveries into typological inquiry.

I do believe that Thomson is not a folk typologist, but not for the reason that you've suggested.



So I'm just curious as to who or what exactly this "folk typology" embodies, and I'm curious as to BW's view of Beebe and his archetypes (is that indelibly apart of "folk typology" or is it only people's misinterpretation of him?).!)."..?

The latter guess is the answer to your question.


Is Myers-Briggs version of the theory itself the root of folk typology? (Since many people do criticize it; think Socionics or even "Jack Flak's system" is better, the test is imperfect and only 65% accurate, etc). ?).!)."..?

You could lodge this criticism against the Myerrs-Briggs system that has been popularized on countless personality theory blogs and the one that underpins only MBTI tests. However, I am not certain if the same characterization applies to all personality systems that bear the name of 'MBTI'.

And what can we all to to overcome and avoid the "FT" trap, or improve our understanding? ?).!)."..?

Appreciate the complexity of personality and its relationships with circumstancial variables. In other words, be humble to the fact that empirical investigation and a careful conceptual analysis of acquired data is necessary in order to appropriately comment on the nature of persons. Another viable option involves retiring from the study of personality theory and focusing on an evaluation of cognitive tendencies which are much less complex than the study of persons.


Is BW aiming to be a pure Jungian? I think he kind of denied that recently, when asked why he uses the MBTI code which is not from Jung.?).!)."..?

Although I share most of Jung's methodological assumptions and characterizations of the cognitive faculties that he has discovered, I've prounded ideas that are not to be found in Psychological Types. Furthermore, I am open to questioning his methodology.

I'd say you need to do more research.

I'd say you need to troll and post one-liners less.

Mmmm, but you're relying on the theoretical as an antidote for "folk typology", not reality. Dario Nardi's brain research, for example, has strong indications that the tertiary is in the same attitude as the dominant..Autobiographical research by others is showing that it differs for different people.

Would you discuss this notion in greater detail please? Did Nardi show that tertiary and dominant functions display similar manifestations in the brain? However, as your second claim suggests, 'autobiographical' research suggests that Nardi's principle does not hold in all cases, or depicts brain activity in only some people?

Please cite his article regarding such research. As a matter of fact, point us in the direction where we could find more articles linking typology to brain-science.
 

edcoaching

New member
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
752
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
7
Would you discuss this notion in greater detail please? Did Nardi show that tertiary and dominant functions display similar manifestations in the brain? However, as your second claim suggests, 'autobiographical' research suggests that Nardi's principle does not hold in all cases, or depicts brain activity in only some people?

Please cite his article regarding such research. As a matter of fact, point us in the direction where we could find more articles linking typology to brain-science.

Dario is waiting for a few more ISTPs and a couple from other types to a) take his class and b)be willing to spend a Saturday in a brain lab before he puts his research in writing. He's speaking frequently though at type associations on the subject; check the events calendar at APTinternational.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Thank you for bringing folk 'typology' to the attention of the forum, hopefully more of our thoughtful members shall become aware of my contention. Please see my discussion with simulatedworld in the post below for a clarification regarding the term definition of 'folk typology'.

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/1065694-post51.html

To dispell further confusions and complications inflicted upon the term by gossipers and propagandists, I'll render the definition clear and simple one more time. Folk typology is a method of drawing inferences about people or human nature that has no grounding in rational thought or authoritative research. In most cases, people who indulge in a superficial, unempirical, behavioristic study of the subject are branded folk typologists. Simulatedworld once asked if that is the definition of folk typology and the answer was a definitive 'no'. A folk typologist could be an occultist who believes that his tarrot card games lead to important insights about people. Although many folk typologists of this site have a strong behavioristic thrust, there is no reason to conclude that anyone who abuses the enterprise is a behaviorist.

I'll discuss the conceptual background in which the mordacious 'folk typology' epithet has emerged. Hopefully this will bring clarity to my method of doing typology.

Typology can be used interchangeably with personality theory; it is the activity of discovering character features of people and underlining how they differ from the fundamental traits of other individuals. On that note, similarly to MBTI, OCEAN AND Enneagram are typological systems.

However, many interpretations and applications of many personality series do not meet the standard of rigorous scientific inquiry or even less critical conceptual scrutiny. Modern psychologists who are working in the personality theory typically provide a great deal of empirical support for their conclusions. They actively perform experiments that involve observations of many people from different cultural and social backgrounds. When they make a conjecture about a person's nature, they do not merely assume that because he or she engaged in a certain behavior, it follows that this person's core personality qualities compel them to behave in a way that they do. They are cognizant of the fact that the behavior could have been caused by a variety of circumstancial influences such as for example their social obligations, personal idiosyncrasies and so on. For this reason, the claim that carefully controlled empirical studies are necessary in order to corroborate conclusions about the nature of persons is regarded as a truism.

Many online expositions regarding MBTI and other personality theories lack such support and do not cite any research where the relevant empirical inquiry has been done. As a student of philosophy with no experience in scientific research, I found it impossible to contribute to the study of personality and was thereby confronted with a task of reconstructing typology to the end of creating a system that allows one to make insights into human nature without requiring empirical support.

The only way this goal could be accomplished is by removing typology from the study of persons. Essentially, the enterprise deals not with the qualities that people have, but rather with their cognitive tendencies. I do not need to study thousands of introverts to claim that they have a tendency to be overwhelmed by excessive interaction than extroverts. Similarly, I do not need to study thousands of intuitives to conclude that their minds are more easily stimulate to exercise imagination than that of sensors. However, I would indeed need to study hundreds if not thousands of people to determine how exactly they will behave in one particular situation or in order to determine the nature of some other qualities that are fundamental to their personality. For example, arm-chair reasoning could never tell me how likely a person is to be a criminal, an athlete, a college professor and so on. In effect, my reconstructed study of typology included a step away from personality theory and a step towards an inquiry into mere cognitive tendencies of people. The former does not purport to have deep insights into the nature of persons, yet the latter does and that is the salient distinction between my work on the subject and that of folk typologists. Although numerous legitimate and empirically supportable studies on personality theory have been performed, most forum members are unenlightened by the insights such studies have led to.

A conclusion on personality theory can be justified in one of the following two fashions.

1. Supported by the requisite empirical research.
2. Couched within the context of a study of cognitive tendencies or other phenomena that do not require empirical support.

Hopefully the explanation above has helped.
OK, thanks for responding.

I just wanted to start by trying to clarify this distinction between "Typology" and "Personality Theory". I would have thought personality theory would simply be a broader term for any theory dealing with personality, including type, temperament, mainstream psychologcal concepts of personality, etc. You're saying they are interchangeable, but then you mention removing typology from the "study of persons" such as studying people by MBTI preference. So is that what you mean by "personality theory"? Typology, on the other hand; or at least your version of it, you seem to associate with the cognitive aspects.

So the four letter MBTI code is "Personality Theory" and cognitive processes are "Typology". (I guess you're speaking of "Jungian type").
In the context of the discussion that you seem to have in mind, the reference was made neither to Beebe himself or other eminent authors cited in your post. The 'Beebean Eight-function model' is commonly given the following folk typological interpretation. We have four functions that are our primary functions and the remaining four follow the exact sequence of the first four, however, their attitude changes. In other words, if they were introverted in the first group, they shall become extroverted in the second and vice versa. For example.

Ni
Te
Fi
Se
Ne
Ti
Fe
Si

Many followers of Beebe such as Lenor Thomson for example chose not to endorse that model and it is a mistake to suggest that every Neo-Bebean is a folk typologist.
Actually, Lenore has pretty much added discussion of Beebe's order to her teaching since writing her book (even moving away from her lasagna order and ship analogy); though she does not agree with everything about his theory. She for one, does not believe the shadow archetypes come up every day, as some of us following the "Neo-Beebeans" often describe them.
John Beebe Archetypes | Lenore Thomson Bentz
The caustic reference targeted only those who dogmatically adhered to the thesis that functions must proceed in that exact order. The assertion that they do follow the sequence listed above is not in itself problematic, but the dogmatic assertion that no other pattern is possible honors the 'folk' methodology that is most commonly seen in religious ideologies and spiritual mysticism.
I guess that would mean people, such as those who misinterpret Nardi's test, and ask why their functions don't come out in that order. I even once thought they were supposed to, but then realized that the order is about the archetypal roles at the heart of Beebe's model, and not about relative strengths. Beebe, of course, took about seven of Jung's archetypes (four of them consisting of male/female versions, and a fifth being separate respective male and female archetypes combined into the same role), and added two of his own to fill in the eight.

Hence, people who will argue over another's type, because they "use" a particular function "too much" that lies in the "shadow" of the type they are professing. This is what I had experienced, and also saw earlier on in the Mistyped Members thread. And it really makes it hard to find a best fit type.

It makes sense that some of the "other" functions might be stronger than the tertiary and especially inferior (though they are considered "ego-syntonic"); which is the basis of Lenore's lasagna/ship model, and also the similar Socionics order.
I see no reason why we must continue using these 'general layman's terms' when instead of saying that a person's type causes him to have a certain characteristic, we could say that at best it develops a tendency to develop the personality feature in question. For example, instead of asserting that Fe makes one display emotion, we should maintain that Fe is merely a tendency to activate one's emotive faculties in response to external stimulation rather than internal. As a result, in the context of the Western culture, people of this type are often inclined to develop personality features associated with being highly emotionally expressive.
Yeah; that's the best way to consider it, even though we forget when we get hung up in focusing on the outward behaviors themselves.

I am not suggesting that the entire enterprise of drawing connections between Jungian type and personality theory should be abandoned, but rather that typological entities should be interpreted as cognitive tendencies rather than ineradicable behavioral habits.

Embracing this method will help us avoid many conceptual confusions and misapplications of the system that unduly place people into vaguely defined arbitrary categories. For conceptual confusions resultant of folk typology, please see my essay on typology as a philosophical discipline.

http://www.typologycentral.com/foru.../23728-typology-philosophical-discipline.html
To me, what I had in mind reagarding "folk typology" was stuff such as this:

(Fe users would struggle to write a letter to ask Santa for what they want)
Fi, after all, is the one dealing with "knowing what we want for ourselves", as you can see in Berens' literature (Which I first turned to in trying to understand the functions).
This is also actually one of the questions on Nardi's test, which I believes raises Fi scores way high. Most people probably put "exactly me". My wife did, and she's obviously Fe dom, and it made her come out as an ISFP (with high Fe) even though she's obviously E and J. So this is a blatant Forer effect that this site defines cognitive preference with.

The end result is that Fi becomes associated with "self-involved" behavior, while Fe is more "selfless". This also seems to point that way:
Beebe On Fi
(Beebe "wonders" if Anxiety might altogether be a form of Fi; symptoms of integrity issues include depression and anxiety).

So according to this, do only FP's become depressed or anxious, because Fi is the one that deals with "integrity"? (which BTW, is also associated as the NF temperament need, and that would include both Fi and Fe types). Or if FJ's and TP's do become depressed and anxious, are they in "shadow mode", and TJ's in "child/anima" mode, while FP's are in their normal mode?

These were the types of things that made it hard to figure, as it was now impossible to tell what was what. And this influential version of the theory also seems to be heavily tied to the kind of statements people made, which you dubbed "folk" typology.

>The other person who references Beebe's model is Lenore Thomson, and she has her own semi-archetype system, with a different order, based on a ship crew analogy. She also aims to clarify Beebe's model, and point it back to its Jungian moorings

The Jungian underpinnings of Thomson's system safeguards her work from the charge of folk typology.

The question of how certain features of a person's brain influence him to engage in a specific set of behaviors is much more complicated than Thomson seems to believe. For one, it is not a scientific discovery that all behaviors that are linear and sequential have been inspired by the left hemisphere only and likewise, there is no scientific support for the assertion that all non-sequential behaviors where we tackle all things at once are supported by the right-hemisphere. Contemporary researchers are inclined to claim that both hemisphere are in an intimate partnership, to the point where it is difficult to claim that a certain faculty is right-brained or left brained only. For that reason, I doubt that this move will allow Mrs. Thomson to procure the support of neuroscientists and other researchers working in the study of the brain.
Her claim is based on reasearch done with PET scanning, which causes glucose to be emitted, which the researchers can measure to tell which side of the brain is working hardest when functions are being used.
This now reminds me of creation-evolution debates, where the two sides will both claim to have research that proves their view, while the other side does not. So I don't know anything about the research, or which studies are more valid. Perhaps the PET scanning is something that does not yet have enough accepted evidence, or something like that, but maybe one day will?
Furthermore, her assertion that Introverted Judging functions and right brained and that introverted perceiving faculties are left brained contravenes the Jungian principles that she has implicitly endorsed throughout her work. Unlike Keirsey, she did acknowledge the existence of functions and regarding the former as judging functions and the latter as perceiving. Predictably, she deemed extroverted judging functions as left brained and extroverted perceiving as right-brained because the former seemed to lead to sequential behaviors and the latter, respectively to non-sequential. She thereby identified judgment with left-brained activity and perception with right-brained. With this conceptual framework, it is impossible for her to assert that introverted judging faculties are right-brained and introverted perceiving functions are left-brained.
So you're saying that Ji=right/Pi=left contradicts T,F="J"=left/S,N="P"=right?
I don't see that as a contradiction at all, though I can see where you might think it is when looking at the four functions as whole concepts apart from the i/e orientation.

I believe it jibes with the fact that J/P would be deemed a standalone factor in its own right in the first place. J/P refers to the extraversion of the preferred function, so even though T/F are "Judging" functions; they are not necessarily "J" in that sense; only if they're externally based. So while there is really one Thinking function, and one Feeling function, whether the person prefers it internally or externally will depend on his brain orientation.

I am apt to suspect that this is where Thomson's theory has been infected with a germ of Keirsey's typology who opined that Judgers or people whose strongest judging faculty is extroverted are generally sequential as well as organized and people whose prevalent extroverted function is a perceiving one are non-sequential as well as disorganized. Thomson's attempts to align her work with science achieved an outcome that was virtually the opposite of the one intended: she rendered her typology more remiscent of Keirsey than that of researchers who are committed to incorporating empirical methodology and discoveries into typological inquiry.

I do believe that Thomson is not a folk typologist, but not for the reason that you've suggested.
So that raises the issue of temperament. I take it you would categorize that as "personality theory" as well. I notice that you do not mention temperament (at least as far as I can remember). That too, of course is not from Jung. Keirsey basically took the ancient temperaments, traced them down through various theorists such as Kretschmer, and then determined the MBTI groups they fit with. Then, you have the Interaction Styles, which stem from the same temperaments, but trace down to another set of groupings. I believe this results in basically a "blended-temperament" system, like you would find used by Tim LaHaye and others, with one set of temperaments dealing with "social" skills, and the other as "leadership" skills, and each of the 16 types being a combination of both.
This does seem to be accurate from what I see. But of course, temperament is often called "behavioral", and thus contrasted with Jung's cognitive theory. (It's also called "affective"; though according to Berens, only Interaction Style is affective, while the Keirsey temperaments are "conative").

Lenore even rejects temperament for that reason. She doesn't seem to mention it in her book, but in other places does openly disagree with it; seeing it as tied more to stereotype, such as what you're addressing.

I tend to see all three models (conative, affective, cognitive) as just looking at the same things from different perspectives.
Like I even suggested to her in an email conversation, the ancient "Melancholic" temperament was defined by being introverted [not yet tied to any cognitive functions of course] and task-focused. (to Galen, it was "cold" and "dry"). In the version of temperament theory I represent (based on FIRO), this means that they do not readily approach people for interactions, and do not want to be approached by others. Now in the conative area (leadership), it would mean that they do not want to control others, and do not want to be controlled by others either. So what does the person trust for in his decision making? He relies on an internal sensory storehouse of data. Hence Hence, he will cognitively prefer "introverted Sensing" and bear an S and a J in his type code. Keirsey said this was a kind of Melancholic, but called it "Epimethean", and later, "Guardian". Depending on internal sensation will lead him to be both "cooperative" (slower to pragmatically initiate action that affects others) and "structure-focused" (trust systems and not more personal things such as motives); which are the original factors translated into the conative model.

You could lodge this criticism against the Myerrs-Briggs system that has been popularized on countless personality theory blogs and the one that underpins only MBTI tests. However, I am not certain if the same characterization applies to all personality systems that bear the name of 'MBTI'.
Well; "MBTI" really refers to the official instrument based on the original work of Myers and Briggs. All those others are basically copycats, and really cannot legally use the term MBTI; but only the type code and functions. Many will realize that most of those blogosphere "quizzes" are not really worth much of anything (such as the ones on Facebook, as have recently been discussed). Other tests using the types vary in reliability.

I was wondering if you believed the original work of Myers and Briggs itself was folk typology.
Appreciate the complexity of personality and its relationships with circumstancial variables. In other words, be humble to the fact that empirical investigation and a careful conceptual analysis of acquired data is necessary in order to appropriately comment on the nature of persons.
OK; that I aim to do. I basically learn this stuff by trying out different ways of looking at it, and seeing which runs into the least amount of assumption. It's just easy to fall into short, quick descriptions that are made to try to simplify it, but then end up negating the complexity of personality
Another viable option involves retiring from the study of personality theory and focusing on an evaluation of cognitive tendencies which are much less complex than the study of persons.
Meaning to focus on the cognitive processes rather than the other models (temperaments, type letters, etc)?
Although I share most of Jung's methodological assumptions and characterizations of the cognitive faculties that he has discovered, I've prounded ideas that are not to be found in Psychological Types. Furthermore, I am open to questioning his methodology.
OK, thanks again!
 
Top