• 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.

Problems of Typology

heart

heart on fire
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
8,456
So if I am understanding BlueWing correctly, it is impossible for people to be say ENXP, one is either a thinker or a feeler, there is no in between. There is no "I am sometimes a thinker and sometimes a feeler depending on circumstances." We hold our unconscious preferences no matter the outside circumstances.
 

nightning

ish red no longer *sad*
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,741
MBTI Type
INfj
As usual BW... your eloquent writing style makes it difficult to read. Although I must say the style is becoming more flowing... an improvement. But still, the length of your essays makes it a chore.

As requested, my brief comments while skimming.

In this essay I shall argue that the behaviorist approach which is reminiscent of Keirsey's typology is inadequate...
This idea rings plausible, however, in order for us to definitely state such a conclusion about the individual we must thoroughly observe his lifestyle and biography. We are not in the position to accomplish this due to the limitation of our faculties.
Was it not the reason why the tests asks the individual to identify their type? Seeing as how they should be the ones who know themselves the best? They are specifically told to address the questions based on their "typical" behavior.

Pray kick me in the ass if I'm confusing MBTI testing protocol with Keirsey's.

we could boldly declare that the behaviorist is not aware of the essence of type itself, but only of the external manifestation thereof.
One must not forget the main purpose of the behaviorist is not to understand the mind or even the person. They merely seek to predict an individual's behavior. To such, the mind is a functional blackbox... all he care about is the effect of situations (inputs) affects behavior (outputs). With that said, I highly doubt Keirsey ,or to generalize to any type theorists, can be behaviorists.

The type in itself is amorphous and indescribable because it inheres within the nature of mind incommensurable to anything we may observe in the external world and intelligibly depict in the terms of our language. However, to make matters bearable, we can have some access to this phenomenon by embracing the approach of philosophy of mind and not behaviorism, as the latter stultifies us in the shallow waters.
Type is indeed amorphous... if it, in fact, exists in the first place. I've previously brought up my views to you in private communications. I do believe people have certain tendencies which manifest themselves as traits... and perhaps these traits can be grouped and named... with MBTI labels I/E, S/N, T/F, J/P. However I do not see why dichotomy between traits must exists. Empirical evidence from the population suggests it does not. Trait distribution follows a bell curve.

With this in mind... I have to raise the question concerning whether temperament and distinct types truly exists. Perhaps that are merely due to artifical categorizing. Following that line of thought, the validity of the underlying judging and perceiving cognitive functions pertaining to specific types must also be questioned.

Allow the obviously non-existent Te in me to step in. Until that issue is addressed in a satisfactory manner, I do not see a purpose in further discussion on the detail theories behind dichotomized "traits". (And no, I did not bother with reading more of your writing beyond that point)

Oh. I also have an issue with rationalization of how minds work. I do not see how such theories can be proven with logics. The only way to prove it in my mind is via empirical testing. Unfortunately even in this day and age such is beyond the skills of mankind.
 

Nocapszy

no clinkz 'til brooklyn
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
4,517
MBTI Type
ENTP
Was it not the reason why the tests asks the individual to identify their type? Seeing as how they should be the ones who know themselves the best?
Perhaps, but irrespective of how introspective a person tends to be, they're still human, can't be able to answer the questions for what they truly ask.

I figure there's more than one factor to this. The first is that no one even CAN observe their behavior closely enough as to be able to answer the questions as directly as the semantics require.

Second is; language, as cumbersome as it is, can scarcely describe in full, all the cognitive work, much less ask questions distinguishable enough to make a thorough investigation. We'd need so many questions that no one would be able to finish the test.
 

nightning

ish red no longer *sad*
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,741
MBTI Type
INfj
I figure there's more than one factor to this. The first is that no one even CAN observe their behavior closely enough as to be able to answer the questions as directly as the semantics require.
Based on what you're saying... observations cannot produce accurate data. Now how does the use of logic and intuition instead of observation help in solving the problem? Both perception and interpretation are subjected to bias. Garbage in, garbage out... or in this case bias data in, bias results out. Let us not forget that the human mind is flawed. We see patterns even when none exists. Science obtain knowledge through strict formal empirical testing. Philosophy does not have that.

(edit: yes I know you haven't argued against the rest of what I've said... but it happen to come up on my mind.)

Second is; language, as cumbersome as it is, can scarcely describe in full, all the cognitive work, much less ask questions distinguishable enough to make a thorough investigation. We'd need so many questions that no one would be able to finish the test.
Agree with you on the problems with language and meaning. That has always been a problem with surveys and questionnaires.
 

Nocapszy

no clinkz 'til brooklyn
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
4,517
MBTI Type
ENTP
Based on what you're saying... observations cannot produce accurate data. Now how does the use of logic and intuition instead of observation help in solving the problem? Both perception and interpretation are subjected to bias. Garbage in, garbage out... or in this case bias data in, bias results out. Let us not forget that the human mind is flawed. We see patterns even when none exists. Science obtain knowledge through strict formal empirical testing. Philosophy does not have that.

(edit: yes I know you haven't argued against the rest of what I've said... but it happen to come up on my mind.)
You misunderstood my post. I didn't say observations can't yield results. I said that we can't make scrupulous enough observation. We can't look closely enough.
 

nightning

ish red no longer *sad*
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,741
MBTI Type
INfj
If we can't look closely enough... then our observations are flawed. That was my extrapolation from your post. My apologies.

So if we can't look closely enough to observe a person's every move, is there an alternate method of arriving at this data?
 

Nocapszy

no clinkz 'til brooklyn
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
4,517
MBTI Type
ENTP
Training one's self to look for important cues would work. That requires learning exactly what each of the functions do, then making a concerted effort for identifying those behaviors in yourself. Even then, it's still hard to get it just right because, as has been stated several times type is amorphous. Not just that, but it's difficult to know exactly what's going on in one's head -- especially for those unconscious perceiving functions.

The best we can do, is make good guesses.
 

nightning

ish red no longer *sad*
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,741
MBTI Type
INfj
That requires learning exactly what each of the functions do, then making a concerted effort for identifying those behaviors in yourself.
Here lies my fundamental doubt about the system of types and temperaments. How do we know these functions exists in the first place? To me, the only way to know is by empirical testing. If our observations can be bias then we never know for sure.

The best we can do, is make good guesses.
I dislike making guesses based upon a hypothetical framework made up of more guesses.

A model is only as good as its predictions...

Everything I've tried looking at people in terms of type I see that it has little predictive value with their behavior.

What use is a theory, no matter how intricate and complex, if it's all made up? If I want to hear a story... I will go pick up a fiction.

/end of Te rant
 

Nocapszy

no clinkz 'til brooklyn
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
4,517
MBTI Type
ENTP
Ah. Here is where Ti trumps his extroverted self.

We know they exist, because jung and his followers were careful enough not to predict anything. Only to figure out and describe what was already going on.

It's possible to be unbiased. Many think it's impossible. They're wrong. If you're careful to look at every paradigm and axiom, and spin them into a web of everything that is, making no predictions, but only looking at what's already there, then we can deal with them without bias.

One thing people often confuse with bias is insufficient education. Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we're biased. It just means there's more work to be done before we start doing any real figuring. Or, if not that, then we keep our predictions tentative, and don't wind an entire yarn of theories hinged on a single hunch or an assumption. You mentioned something about this in your post.

The problem with most, even those who've cast aside the testing for observational analysis and function theory is that they don't quite fully understand what each function does.

It can be taken apart, and figured mathematically.

The functions account for all possibilities. Every way we have of taking in information, and every way we have of dealing with or disposing of it.

Before anyone can go any further, they have to understand that.

I'll try and not take over your thread BW.
 

Gabe

New member
Joined
Nov 17, 2007
Messages
590
MBTI Type
ENTP
So if I am understanding BlueWing correctly, it is impossible for people to be say ENXP, one is either a thinker or a feeler, there is no in between. There is no "I am sometimes a thinker and sometimes a feeler depending on circumstances." We hold our unconscious preferences no matter the outside circumstances.

You hold your unconscious preferences, but that does not make your non-preffered process conclusions inherently less worthwhile. There are also people who might have a preference but are so unconscious/compensating/making themselves right that they never use the preferred process well. Also, both of the archetypes for tertiary and inferior can obscure preference. The aspirational role continually states its importance, and the tertiary rides a roller coaster from high to low confidence, and on the high points it can make us second-guess a preference. I don't think there would be an in-between in preference, but all actual behavior is somewhere in between.
 

doob

New member
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
5
MBTI Type
xNTp
I thoroughly enjoyed this thread. I don't have any questions or anything, but I would be interested in reading anything else. :)

Yes, I agree, a very illuminating thread.

Me three, I certainly gained a better understanding of MBTI theory from reading this thread. Thank you Bluewing and dissonance for allowing us to "eavesdrop" on your "conversation."


P.S. I guess it might be safe for me to put an "i" where the "x" is.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
One must not forget the main purpose of the behaviorist is not to understand the mind or even the person. They merely seek to predict an individual's behavior. To such, the mind is a functional blackbox... all he care about is the effect of situations (inputs) affects behavior (outputs). With that said, I highly doubt Keirsey ,or to generalize to any type theorists, can be behaviorists.

We should not use typology to answer the questions of behaviorists, namely why people do things that they do. Those should be placed within the realm of personality, which Jung's typology has little to do with.


Type is indeed amorphous... if it, in fact, exists in the first place. I've previously brought up my views to you in private communications. I do believe people have certain tendencies which manifest themselves as traits... and perhaps these traits can be grouped and named... with MBTI labels I/E, S/N, T/F, J/P. However I do not see why dichotomy between traits must exists. Empirical evidence from the population suggests it does not. Trait distribution follows a bell curve..

Type is but an unconscious tendencies towards acqusition of certain habits of mind. It would be of great temerity to insist that some of us dont have a stronger natural predilections towards memorization of facts than others. Some of us have a stronger natural predilection towards learning empathy or logic, etc.

This is especially manifest in small children. Kids' Personality Portraits




With this in mind... I have to raise the question concerning whether temperament and distinct types truly exists. Perhaps that are merely due to artifical categorizing. Following that line of thought, the validity of the underlying judging and perceiving cognitive functions pertaining to specific types must also be questioned. .

The categorization is quite general and devoid of artificial categorization you mention, as simply saying one is Intuitive means a natural predilection towards the imagination over sensation. Such taxonomy depicts the simplest and most distinct aspects of human nature rather than man made semantics.
 

nightning

ish red no longer *sad*
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,741
MBTI Type
INfj
We should not use typology to answer the questions of behaviorists, namely why people do things that they do. Those should be placed within the realm of personality, which Jung's typology has little to do with.
Much agreed... the two subjects are unrelated.

Type is but an unconscious tendencies towards acqusition of certain habits of mind. It would be of great temerity to insist that some of us dont have a stronger natural predilections towards memorization of facts than others. Some of us have a stronger natural predilection towards learning empathy or logic, etc.

The categorization is quite general and devoid of artificial categorization you mention, as simply saying one is Intuitive means a natural predilection towards the imagination over sensation. Such taxonomy depicts the simplest and most distinct aspects of human nature rather than man made semantics.
Natural tendencies are readily observed and I am not denying their existence. I simply question the proposed dichotomy between traits. That people can be so neatly divided into one or the other that give arise to these 16 distinct types.

Why does 16 types exist?

People tried to derive at independent traits in people... using the lexicon approach and factor analysis they've obtained 5... The so-call Big 5... openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, neuroticism. So why not have 2^5 = 32 types?

16 types seems a little arbitrary to me.

(Before giving me the temperament theory explanation, which I'm quite aware of, what I'm asking for here is hard evidence to back the theory. Not metaphysics.)
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Why does 16 types exist?

People tried to derive at independent traits in people... using the lexicon approach and factor analysis they've obtained 5... The so-call Big 5... openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, neuroticism. So why not have 2^5 = 32 types?

16 types seems a little arbitrary to me.

(Before giving me the temperament theory explanation, which I'm quite aware of, what I'm asking for here is hard evidence to back the theory. Not metaphysics.)

Big 5 isnt at all relevant to typology because those are but personality traits not directly associated with our apriori cognitive predilections.

There is no dichotomy. This should be viewed on a continuum. Some of us have a very strong natural predilection towards Intuition for example, over sensation. Some of us have a strong, but not greatly so preferrence for Intuition. In the case of the former, where we have the very strong preferrence for Intuition, our predilection towards Sensation must be weak. In the second case where predilection towards Intuition is strong, but not extremely so, predilection towards Sensation should be weak, but also not extremely so.

Hence in the second case, our preferrence for Thinking for example, may be stronger than our preferrence for Intuition. In such a case the predilection towards Thinking is the strongest of all and towards Feeling the weakest. In most cases it is obvious which trait we naturally have the easiest time with. But this is not at all to imply that everyone with the strongest tendency towards Thinking for example, is equally at ease with Thinking as all others who also have the strongest tendency towards this faculty. Again this is a continuum. We have a faculty that we are most comfortable with, and the faculty that is directly opposed to this one, we must be least comfortable with. Yet there is no rigid and exacting specification to what degree we must all be comfortable with our most easily handled faculty.

Must definitions of Thinking, Feeling, Intuition and Sensation be rigid? No, each of these terms encompasses a myriad of psychological tendencies, which only in general terms are best alluded to what we refer to as Thinking, Feeling and Intuiting in colloquial terms. Yet certainly it would be quite difficult to mistake any of those tendencies most easily associated with Thinking for Feeling, or those with Intuition for Sensation. Despite that they are quite abstract and amorphous, they are far from meaningless.

As for hard evidence, we simply notice that Thinking children tend to test better in logic and mathematics than Feeling children. (Not those who merely score Thinking on an MBTI test, but the children we have thoroughly examined and established that their strongest natural predilection is towards Thinking.) Intuiting children do best in activities which require imagination and manipulation of abstract variables. Sensing children do best at tasks which require concrete, hands on activities and applications, as well as memorization of facts. Feeling children do best in activities that test our ability to relate to other people and understand our own emotions. The correlation between those factors is significant to the point where it cannot be ignored.
 
Top