User Tag List

First 345

Results 41 to 46 of 46

  1. #41
    Senior Member King sns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    6w7 sp/sx


    It's like anything- it can be used to it's benefit or it can be totally abused. There is a time and a place for this stuff. I have benefited overall and enjoyed most of the time I've spent sorting it out. Even if you eliminate the labels that go along with it, it still gives good insight into human nature.
    06/13 10:51:03 five sounds: you!!!
    06/13 10:51:08 shortnsweet: no you!!
    06/13 10:51:12 shortnsweet: go do your things and my things too!
    06/13 10:51:23 five sounds: oh hell naw
    06/13 10:51:55 shortnsweet: !!!!
    06/13 10:51:57 shortnsweet: (cries)
    06/13 10:52:19 RiftsWRX: You two are like furbies stuck in a shoe box

    My Nohari
    My Johari
    by sns.

  2. #42
    morose bourgeoisie
    Join Date
    Mar 2009


    So what type was Carl Jung? lol

  3. #43
    Anew Leaf


    Quote Originally Posted by Savage Idealist View Post
    Changed my mind, I'm just mildly skeptical of it now; I acknowledge it's pros and it's cons.

    God for bid I ever fully doubt the type system.
    Well, what did you expect from this thread? That everyone on here would slap their foreheads and say, oh! I never thought of that?

    You just have to take a balance to it all. It's fun and gives some good insight into other people, but at the end of the day it isn't the end-all be-all.

    We will all have more similarities with people who share the same mbti and e-types... but we aren't the exact same.

    For me, it's kind of nice to sift out some of these type theories, and see what's left. It's like panning for gold. You have to get rid of the sand and dirt and debris and sometimes you find something shiny left over.

    It's helped me interact with people better with whom I wouldn't normally get along. And it has helped me understand family members who do things that anger me, and get that they aren't trying to make me mad, they are just being themselves.

  4. #44
    Luminosity 2.0 Loona's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    7w6 so/sp
    ILE None


    Quote Originally Posted by Savage Idealist View Post
    God for bid I ever fully doubt the type system.
    There's a huge difference between doubting the type system and outright saying typology is pointless and asking if it's total bs.

    I'd really like to hear any overall doubts that you have about it. It's just that outright saying it's pointless is setting you up for disaster because people can make points out of anything

  5. #45
    Join Date
    May 2007
    5w6 sp/sx



  6. #46
    Junior Member Evening's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011


    Agreed with the OP.

    Typology is an unbacked theory with little scientific credibility. There are reasons for that. It relies wholly on self-analysis, which is intrinsically flawed.

    Naturally humans tend to inflate their abilities. Statistics have shown that the majority of people mark themselves as good drivers (around 70% believe themselves above average), highly capable socially (around 60% believe they're in the top 10%), and intelligent (need I explain this one? XD). Most people consider themselves 'important'. Yet obviously the majority of people can't be in the upper quartile (hence the phrase 'depressive realism'). This may reflect in personality tests, where with values that society has tried to encourage as 'good', people will inflate their opinion with it.

    I see this a lot with the N/S divide, where the more common S is seen inadvertently by a lot (not necessarily all) as inferior - as bland, boring, prosaic, etc. Many people will deliberately delude themselves as such - I have an SJ friend who was convinced she was a 'P', since she saw Ps as being more fun and carefree (and if J's can have fun and be carefree just as Ps do, then we assume personality is ultimately something very flexible and it cannot be pigeonholed into sixteen types). Introspection itself is more likely to, according to psychology,

    Another consideration is misinterpretations of the types themselves. Adjectives can easily be misinterpreted, lacking a precise definition. How would one define 'nice'? Is it through being pro-active and contributing to people's welfare, or is it through mannerisms, through smiling and being polite when one sees them, or is it through respecting people philosophically as of worth as opposed to practically? Is attempting to see people often and arrange meetings friendly and welcoming, or is it pushy? Is someone who isn't argumentative nice, or are they avoiding the reality of 'the world can't get on?'. Nice is a broadbrush example, but you can see how many can take words such as 'imaginative' or 'practical' and take them in different directions.There are various different kinds of imaginative and practical and it's crude to attempt to connect them.

    Example: My father is an ISTJ, probably, and so is a friend. Yet as people, they are different - sure, they are both grounded in realism and precision, yet their attitudes to religion (apathy vs. strong belief), to competition and achievement (understand people vs. let them fail), their intelligence levels (high vs. medium) and their pretentiousness/confidence levels (low vs. high) - differ extraordinarily. Their backgrounds and experiences define them as people, not typology.

    People are unique enough that to split the world into sixteenths will result in pigeonholing and simplifying the complexity of some personalities. There is a lot of differentiation within types, which perhaps reflects incorrectly on the types themselves - that various different kinds of people, often so different, can be typed the same, is that really an effective system of sorting personality? Perhaps, then sixteen groups are not enough. Perhaps, thirty two, or perhaps sixty four? Perhaps, even seven billion? Yes, people can be similar and have overlapping characteristics, however overlapping isn't a synonym for identical.

    Typology just reinforces stereotypes, without really telling us anything new.
    noun: The period of time at the end of the day, usually from about 6 p.m. to bedtime; it was seven o’clock in the evening

Similar Threads

  1. I think Jungian typology is more accurate than MBTI
    By Soph11287 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 08-08-2015, 10:41 AM
  2. Life is pointless
    By siltha in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 05-30-2012, 02:28 AM
  3. Another "Why Typology is Stupid" Thread
    By ThatsWhatHeSaid in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-22-2011, 08:34 AM
  4. Typology is our household god.
    By Mole in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02-02-2011, 12:46 AM
  5. What I think typology is
    By BlackCat in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 03-20-2009, 10:51 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO