• 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.

JCF Isn't The Answer

rav3n

.
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
11,655
There isn't going to be much insight into anyone if they're miscategorized to begin with. It should have been obvious that miscategorization becomes inevitable if people are not permitted to answer questions truthfully. MBTI types are frequently nothing more than an artifact of a forced-choice testing method, rather than a tool yielding any significant level of insight.

If you want insight, try conversing with a person like any rational human being would. That way you won't be operating on little more than sloppy assumptions.
The same could be said for DISC or any other forms of testing...
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
Why's that? Because you can't now push people into fun little stereotypes about their level of intelligence or interest in religion?
 

Little_Sticks

New member
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
1,358
Based on personal experience, I've found Jung's theory of neurosis regarding how the functions are interrelated to be very helpful and insightful at times. But it usually requires an external observer to comment simply and innocently on my behavior and give me the proper clues/cues to recognize a neurosis - it's enlightening, like coming out of a mental twilight zone.

What's cool about the cognitive functions is that when reductionism is applied to parts of the past you can decipher certain patterns that help guide you into making better decisions with other people and yourself (this assumes dynamically changing and always evidently abstract cognitive functions at all times though). And that means I can't use it as a typing tool. But I get the feeling that even if I could successfully use it as a typing tool that it would conflict with my desire to have a free will. I feel like all the other problems really result from this one problem. But I guess it's a moot point. (and maybe it's not really a problem)
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
If you want insight, try conversing with a person like any rational human being would.
That way you won't be operating on little more than sloppy assumptions.

But Jag, some people are too stupid for that.
 

OrangeAppled

Sugar Hiccup
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
7,626
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Who views it as an "Answer"? An answer to what?
I just view it as a categorization system of thought processes based on intangible qualities percieved in people. Obviously, there is no literal "Ti" process in the brain. Obviously, there is no foolproof way of determining a person's type, including your own.

I consider it to be like categorizing other human traits. Even visible ones aren't always agreed upon. For example, there are 5 basic hair color categories: red, brown, blond & black. We all know there are more than 5 hair colors in the world. There are infinite colors. However, most of us can identify a category that fits our hair color best, and determine one for others. Having very distinct categories makes it easier to choose one, instead of being stuck between two similar categories with only small, nuanced differences. Occasionally, you will look at someone & see dark blond hair, but someone else sees light brown hair, and so now the best category for their hair color is very much a matter of individual perspective. I see personality typology in a similar vein. The best type match can be a matter of perspective, and some people don't fit as neatly into one category as others. That doesn't mean the whole system is entirely useless, it's just limited in what it can describe.
 

Jaguar

Active member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
20,647
The same could be said for DISC or any other forms of testing...

That's right. Forced-choice testing in particular.
In the end, the only way to have insight into someone is if they validate what you think is true.

Why's that? Because you can't now push people into fun little stereotypes about their level of intelligence or interest in religion?

Oh, I forgot - what was that nonsense about crying babies and low IQ?
It was in the same thread where mal was rambling on about SJs and religion. :wink:
 

rav3n

.
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
11,655
*tosses out psychology and sociology since results can't consistently be repeated*
 

rav3n

.
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
11,655
That's right. Forced-choice testing in particular.
In the end, the only way to have insight into someone is if they validate what you think is true.
Nice try, but it doesn't address my post.
Now that you've amended your post, I will respond.

The only way to gain insight into someone is to watch their behaviour since most people aren't terribly self-aware and say a lot of things they either want to believe or they feel they'll get maximum mileage out of. In observations, a personality pattern will emerge.

As far as trying to type someone else, it's easier to say what they aren't than what they are. But trying to type someone else is more for fun or interest sake, than to be taken terribly seriously.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
I've stated the basic assumption of JCF already: Jung asserted that cognitive functions create a certain character. You can read this for yourself in Personality Types. His discussions of the individual types are divided into two distinct parts. The first part discusses the function itself; the second part analyzes the character produced by this function. All I'm saying is that there is no proof that the first part leads to the second.

You're absolutely right. However, I don't think JCF necessarily includes those profiles, which are candidly a product of Jung's personal experience. I'm just as leery about simulatedworld's JCF profiles for the same reason: they're based off of anecdotes and a collective of overarching patterns in behavior. It's the reader's responsibility to take it for its reductionism, to understand that it's a narrow interpretation of individuals, and move on.

The functions themselves are beautifully basic. However, I think it's an error to assume that a personality is reduced to them from the totality of its parts. It's the other way around - the personality reduces the functions.

You can't read someone's mind, of course, but Jung, being an introvert, made a procedure out of working his way out of the subject until it was about the object. He was initially inspired by the object, but precisely focused on the underlying mechanics of what he observed and how it corresponded with his own thinking.

Honestly, I think it's extremely peculiar that you examine personality by the vocabulary one uses and the way they dress. As far as I'm concerned, these are almost as irrelevant as what position one sleeps in and whether they slurp their spaghetti or eat it in chunks. Furthermore, it's excruciatingly literal and concrete. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure you're deriving theory from it, but when I'm getting to know someone, I focus on how they think, in depth. Why? Why Why Why is the question I ask myself. Vocabulary and attire are just as superficial as culture and everything else that's perverted the innocence of a person's core.
 

Jaguar

Active member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
20,647
The only way to gain insight into someone is to watch their behaviour since most people aren't terribly self-aware and say a lot of things they either want to believe or they feel they'll get maximum mileage out of. In observations, a personality pattern will emerge.

The behavior you see is through your own lens. Ten people could witness a person's behavior through their individual lenses, resulting in ten different opinions of what the behavior means.

As far as trying to type someone else, it's easier to say what they aren't than what they are. But trying to type someone else is more for fun or interest sake, than to be taken terribly seriously.

You can only "see" what your lens allows you to see. You can kid yourself into believing what you think is there, actually isn't. And what you think isn't there, actually is. None of us are omniscient - not even you. You are just as capable of self-deception as anyone else.

As for your last sentence, ironically, you're one of the people who takes MBTI far too seriously. It was you who complained about having such a hard time communicating in a world of sensors, and why shouldn't "they" have to adapt. That is a prime example of using type as an excuse for one's own foibles.

I'm just as leery about simulatedworld's JCF profiles for the same reason: they're based off of anecdotes and a collective of overarching patterns in behavior.

All viewed through the confines of his own lens. That was my point to Jenaphor.
The scary thing about Sim is, you could flat out tell him something wasn't true about yourself, and he couldn't adapt to the new knowledge. He'd just ignore it or pretend it wasn't true.

I recall telling an ENT (Ear, Nose and Throat) I had bilateral symptoms with my type of sinusitis.
"That's impossible," she said.

I fired her on the spot.

Honestly, I think it's extremely peculiar that you examine personality by the vocabulary one uses and the way they dress.

Don't forget the car you drive and what you eat for breakfast.
It's crucial, when typing people.
 

rav3n

.
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
11,655
The behavior you see is through your own lens. Ten people could witness a person's behavior through their individual lenses, resulting in ten different opinions of what the behavior means.

You can only "see" what your lens allows you to see. You can kid yourself into believing what you think is there, actually isn't. And what you think isn't there, actually is. None of us are omniscient - not even you. You are just as capable of self-deception as anyone else.
Using your own logic, you're viewing me through your own subjective lens. Why the need for all the personalised insults?

As for your last sentence, ironically, you're one of the people who takes MBTI far too seriously. It was you who complained about having such a hard time communicating in a world of sensors, and why shouldn't "they" have to adapt. That is a prime example of using type as an excuse for one's own foibles.
The thread you mentioned was about children, not adults or even teenagers. I specifically stated that most intuitives have adapted and some have excelled. It is a sensors world so there really is no choice but to do so. And quite frankly again, to use your own logic, this is all viewed through your own subjective lens. :wink:
 

Jaguar

Active member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
20,647
Why the need for all the personalised insults?

There is nothing in here that is a personal insult:

The behavior you see is through your own lens. Ten people could witness a person's behavior through their individual lenses, resulting in ten different opinions of what the behavior means.

You can only "see" what your lens allows you to see. You can kid yourself into believing what you think is there, actually isn't. And what you think isn't there, actually is. None of us are omniscient - not even you. You are just as capable of self-deception as anyone else.

And yes, you were complaining about having to adapt your communication.
Abstract and concrete language was brought up.

By the way, your tactic of pretending people are "insulting you" in order to take the focus off the discussion, is getting old.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Who views it as an "Answer"? An answer to what?
I just view it as a categorization system of thought processes based on intangible qualities percieved in people. Obviously, there is no literal "Ti" process in the brain. Obviously, there is no foolproof way of determining a person's type, including your own.

I consider it to be like categorizing other human traits. Even visible ones aren't always agreed upon. For example, there are 5 basic hair color categories: red, brown, blond & black. We all know there are more than 5 hair colors in the world. There are infinite colors. However, most of us can identify a category that fits our hair color best, and determine one for others. Having very distinct categories makes it easier to choose one, instead of being stuck between two similar categories with only small, nuanced differences. Occasionally, you will look at someone & see dark blond hair, but someone else sees light brown hair, and so now the best category for their hair color is very much a matter of individual perspective. I see personality typology in a similar vein. The best type match can be a matter of perspective, and some people don't fit as neatly into one category as others. That doesn't mean the whole system is entirely useless, it's just limited in what it can describe.

You went from "I don't see it as the Answer" to "that doesn't mean the system is entirely useless." If that summed up my argument, it would be a complete non sequitur. But it's not an argument I made.

I know that what it comes down to here is that my main message is too abstract. I have found that terms such as "non sequitur" simply whoosh. In any attempt to criticize a comment's logic, the commenter simply presses the mental reset button and repeats the same argument.

I don't know why you feel attacked or something, you're not on my plonk list, or even potential plonk list.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
All viewed through the confines of his own lens. That was my point to Jenaphor.
The scary thing about Sim is, you could flat out tell him something wasn't true about yourself, and he couldn't adapt to the new knowledge. He'd just ignore it or pretend it wasn't true.

I recall telling an ENT (Ear, Nose and Throat) I had bilateral symptoms with my type of sinusitis.
"That's impossible," she said.

I fired her on the spot.



Don't forget the car you drive and what you eat for breakfast.
It's crucial, when typing people.

The reason I'm leery of simulatedworld's theories isn't necessarily that they're relative, it's that I simply disagree with a few of them in terms of how he describes the actual cognitive processing, more specifically his interpretation of Ni, Se, and especially Fi. Granted, he has come quite a ways since his days of Fi bashing.

Whether he actually says that his anecdotes are the cut and dry effects of the functions, my memory fails to remind me. What's more worrying are those that read and either misunderstand him because they're out of touch with his sources, or adopt it without scrutiny. We both know that he's privy of Jung and Lenore Thomson, and his views are both his greatest strengths and his greatest weakness. Insofar as his actual character, it disturbs me that he's not always striving for the truth. But then again, I can't say that any of us are consistent in that arena. He's just exceedingly brash about it.
 

rav3n

.
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
11,655
The behavior you see is through your own lens. Ten people could witness a person's behavior through their individual lenses, resulting in ten different opinions of what the behavior means.

You can only "see" what your lens allows you to see. You can kid yourself into believing what you think is there, actually isn't. And what you think isn't there, actually is. None of us are omniscient - not even you. You are just as capable of self-deception as anyone else.

There is nothing in here that is a personal insult:
The bolded are very personalised insults, in their assumption of omnipotence, as well as generalised personal tone. Don't try to weasel out of it once...again.
And yes, you were complaining about having to adapt your communication.
Abstract and concrete language was brought up.
We were discussing children and needing to adapt. Spinning it doesn't change the reality of the thread. And to bring it up months later out of context is really odd and obsessive.

By the way, your tactic of pretending people are "insulting you" in order to take the focus off the discussion, is getting old.
And your personal insults are getting beyond old.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
You went from "I don't see it as the Answer" to "that doesn't mean the system is entirely useless." If that summed up my argument, it would be a complete non sequitur. But it's not an argument I made.

I know that what it comes down to here is that my main message is too abstract. I have found that terms such as "non sequitur" simply whoosh. In any attempt to criticize a comment's logic, the commenter simply presses the mental reset button and repeats the same argument.

I don't know why you feel attacked or something, you're not on my plonk list, or even potential plonk list.

She said she feels attacked?

Listen man, I don't know what game you're playing, or if you're even playing a game, but I will say that you're coming very close to being inflammatory. I'm not offended. I'm just making this clear to anyone who might be reading, including you if you happen to be oblivious to it.
 

rav3n

.
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
11,655
I'll say it one more time - pretending there are "personal insults" to avoid the discussion is getting old.
Nice way to try to avoid personal responsibility for your behaviours. We both know what you're doing, weaseling, as usual.
 
Top