a thing to keep in mind about functions (Ni as example)

[miss fortune]

Yeah, like that one time when a dude got a pole through his freakin' head and his personality drastically changed. I don't think any typology theory would accurately explain that.

Even still, typology and trait-based theories like the Big Five might still be useful. The thing is, after we've theorized a bit, we've gotta find their limitations. We ask: do these theories hold up for individuals over time? Do they necessarily need to? For example, Multiplicity posits that our traits are situational. I believe that's a valid line of inquiry--probably a result of trying to tie theories back to the real world.

If they don't hold up for people over time, they might still be good as snapshots at points in time, typical representations for personal development, etc. We could use them to guide individuals' direction from the present moment, even if we don't pretend that their personalities are static.

I would take more of a snapshot approach than a static approach... I can attest that I'm definitely a different person than I was in High School (when I was the poser child of ExTJ)

and Phineas Gage! I remember reading about him as a kid!!!

 

[Poki]

Yeah, like that one time when a dude got a pole through his freakin' head and his personality drastically changed. Geez! I don't think any typology theory would accurately explain that.

Even still, typology and trait-based theories like the Big Five might still be useful. The thing is, after we've theorized a bit, we've gotta find their limitations. We ask: do these theories hold up for individuals over time? Do they necessarily need to? For example, Multiplicity posits that our traits are situational. I believe that's a valid line of inquiry--probably a result of trying to tie theories back to the real world.

If they don't hold up for people over time, they might still be good as snapshots at points in time, typical representations for personal development, etc. We could use them to guide individuals' direction from the present moment, even if we don't pretend that their personalities are static.



The way I understand it, it applies in actually developing a theory. The theory is an attempt to explain what's real and generalize/extrapolate beyond what we already know to hypothesize about whatever else is out there. The problem is when we don't try to tie that new theory back into the real world.


I am actually right there with you guys--the question of "are these theories valid?" is not asked enough.

I can tell you the limitations...it "generalizes" people.

 

[garbage]

I can tell you the limitations...it "generalizes" people.

That's one limitation. There are several more.

I would take more of a snapshot approach than a static approach... I can attest that I'm definitely a different person than I was in High School (when I was the poser child of ExTJ)

Man, yeah. It would be hard to identify with ENFP during depressive episodes.

It's hard to fit a theory to an entire person over the course of their entire life. And if a theory does fit, it must either account for or lack an explanation for variance within a given person over time and during particular events.

 

[miss fortune]

Man, yeah. It would be hard to identify with ENFP during depressive episodes.

It's hard to fit a theory to an entire person over the course of their entire life. And if a theory does fit, it must either account for or lack an explanation for variance within a given person over time and during particular events.

I would think that if a single type would explain the same person for an entire lifetime that would be a sign that the person probably was mentally unwell in a way

of course actual mental disorders would make finding a catch-all type for an individual completely impossible... I do believe that I recall that we have something in common that would make finding any one type to be rather impossible as well

you could probably use the functions to describe mental mechanisms, but using any of them as a static description of type would be impossible... people would be more like a changeable bouquet of functions than anything...

 

[Poki]

That's one limitation. There are several more.

Most limitations I am blind to as I dont see a "box" and I cant actually stay within the box. My mind and what I can concieve is my box, its my limitation. Theories, life, experiences, all merge together into what I can concieve...so I dont focus on the limitations, just growing. I hit a limitation when what I cant achieve what I want with what I have, thats when you need to dig deeper and expand out more. I am an extremely open person and not restrictive so it works pretty well for me. I tend not to do it for the sake of doing it...have you ever heard the saying..."when you stop looking for something...thats when you find it"?

 

[stalemate]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEa7vtXrNQQ&feature=player_embedded#t=58s
"lol intuitives only need three points and they magically got it, while sensors need every single detail of everything because they are dumb."

I've magically detected via pattern recognition that this guy is a moron.

 

[Jaguar]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEa7vtXrNQQ&feature=player_embedded#t=58s
"lol intuitives only need three points and they magically got it, while sensors need every single detail of everything because they are dumb."

I stopped the video at 2 seconds. He's the same idiot who many of us briefly listened to, ages ago.

 

[Anew Leaf]

I've magically detected via pattern recognition that this guy is a moron.

Lmao!

My wifi connection isn't the best so I only got 20s. I will have to go back and rematch because I am already hooked from the get go. "notice my eyes moving around? That's a dead give away for an intuitive because we access all parts of our brain."

I guess the blind can never be Ns then.

 

[KDude]

Ideals that we can strive for or attempt to understand have a purpose, even if they're unreachable. Christians strive to be like Jesus, for example, even though they maintain that being exactly like him is impossible..

Wait.. MBTI is about ideals we should strive for now? And the "archetypal/abstract" ISTP is my Jesus?

I don't want to strive for anything. No matter what type I am, I just like to be me - whatever that may be. Typology helps me better understand other people, if anything. My interest in the subject isn't about my self-development per se. There are so many better ways to go about that.

 

[miss fortune]

I guess the blind can never be Ns then.

well, they certainly can't be Ss since they're MISSING a sense

 

[Mal12345]

This clears it up, thanks!


This thread on PerN is an example of exactly why I emphasized "think you know". Observe:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEa7vtXrNQQ&feature=player_embedded#t=58s
"lol intuitives only need three points and they magically got it, while sensors need every single detail of everything because they are dumb."

Yeah, let's just not talk about the fact that intuitives can be wrong about the patterns they perceive.

(Socionics-wise, I noticed he has the long "intuitive face.") There are many points he could have mentioned, but he is only being a sensor-bashing 5w6. A sensor makes for a fine navigator when it comes to driving around in unfamiliar territory, or even in familiar territory when the Intuitive driving is lost in thought and is about to miss the exit ramp. A sensor is great at seeing fine details the intuitive will miss without extra paying close attention.

 

[garbage]

Wait.. MBTI is about ideals we should strive for now? And the "archetypal/abstract" ISTP is my Jesus?

I don't want to strive for anything. No matter what type I am, I just like to be me - whatever that may be. Typology helps me better understand other people, if anything. My interest in the subject isn't about my self-development per se. There are so many better ways to go about that.

Whoops, how about we leave off "strive for" in my statement? I don't mean to imply that a type is something to strive for. I simply mean that types are abstract concepts and that abstract concepts are still useful.

 

[Mal12345]

Yeah, let's just not talk about the fact that intuitives can be wrong about the patterns they perceive.

True. But in my case, I am always and ever fine-tuning the results of an intuition. Typology for me is mostly about fine-tuning the "vibes" I get. As auxiliary to Ti, my Ne is just a source of ideas. For example, last night I was reminded of Ray Jay Johnson (the "you can call me Ray" guy from 70s tv ads). While I was trying to remember exactly how his schtick went, it suddenly occurred to me, like a bolt from the blue, that the pattern of his spiel was in Iambic Pentameter poetic form. WRONG! I double checked and it was actually Iambic Trimeter. However, my intuitive insight was on the right track, it just needed a little fine-tuning of the details.

 

[garbage]

True. But in my case, I am always and ever fine-tuning the results of an intuition. ... However, my intuitive insight was on the right track, it just needed a little fine-tuning of the details.

Huh. I see similar things being true for me.. thanks for pointing that out.

I also figure that, if I refine my intuitions and extract as much as I can from my experiences, then I will have truly learned from them, and my future insights will be even more accurate at more detailed levels. The key continues to be checking these insights against reality to determine how well they actually do match up.

One's visceral response of "Oh god I gotta leave my job, oh crap, oh crap" might just become "Huh, it looks like I don't like getting yelled at. Can I avoid that at this job? Is that best accomplished by talking to my boss or just trying to do a better job?" And then one would know better for the next time, and babies are not thrown out with the bathwater.

 

[Mal12345]

Huh. I see similar things being true for me.. thanks for pointing that out.

I also figure that, if I refine my intuitions and extract as much as I can from my experiences, then I will have truly learned from them, and my future insights will be even more accurate at more detailed levels. The key continues to be checking these insights against reality to determine how well they actually do match up.

One's visceral response of "Oh god I gotta leave my job, oh crap, oh crap" might just become "Huh, it looks like I don't like getting yelled at. Can I avoid that at this job? Is that best accomplished by talking to my boss or just trying to do a better job?" And then one would know better for the next time, and babies are not thrown out with the bathwater.

Was that supposed to be an example of intuition?

 

[garbage]

Was that supposed to be an example of intuition?

It's supposed to be, though the initial intuition was way off course. It's an example of starting with an immediate insight after a stimulus (e.g. the boss yelled at me) and running it through a major refinement process.

 

[Mal12345]

It's supposed to be, though the initial intuition was way off course. It's an example of starting with an immediate insight after a stimulus (e.g. the boss yelled at me) and running it through a major refinement process.

Uh-uhhhhh. Not an insight. I offered the insight example. You gave a knee-jerk-reaction example.

 

[garbage]

Uh-uhhhhh. Not an insight. I offered the insight example. You gave a knee-jerk-reaction example.

Hmm. I'm not so sure that I draw a strong distinction between the two. Is the difference between "intuition" and "knee-jerk reaction" that one is accurate and the other is inaccurate, is it that they arrive from different sources, or is there another difference between them that I am missing?

The poor soul in my example was right in that something was wrong with his work situation, but he was sketchy on the details until he checked it against the real world. (And, hopefully, his knee-jerk assessments of similar situations that arise later on will be more accurate because he has learned from this one!)

 

[Mal12345]

Hmm. I'm not so sure that I draw a strong distinction between the two. Is the difference between "intuition" and "knee-jerk reaction" that one is accurate and the other is inaccurate, is it that they arrive from different sources, or is there another difference between them that I am missing?

The poor soul in my example was right in that something was wrong with his work situation, but he was sketchy on the details until he checked it against the real world. (And, hopefully, his knee-jerk assessments of similar situations that arise later on will be more accurate because he has learned from this one!)

"Something is wrong with his work situation" differs from the "Oh god I gotta leave my job, oh crap, oh crap" visceral reaction. And the former is not an intuition unless you can show that it was a revelation.

 

[garbage]

"Something is wrong with his work situation" differs from the "Oh god I gotta leave my job, oh crap, oh crap" visceral reaction. And the former is not an intuition unless you can show that it was a revelation.

Point taken. Even the former seems like it'd be an 'obvious' response to a boss yelling. I'll have to mull over that one further.

How about this instead: A dude was talking, and he shifted subjects to a particular person. While he was talking about this person, I received the insight that "He's suggesting that this person was 'antsy.' The next word that he's gonna say is something like 'antsy.'" all at once. The next word the guy said was "nervous," in describing the other person. Looking back, I suppose it was the inflection in his voice and the context that emerged mid-sentence, but I didn't factor those in until I thought about it later.

Situations like that arise for me all the time in big ways and in little ways, and they do tend to guide me, though I still try to be open to the possibility that at least the details of these insights are wrong. It can be troublesome to figure out which details are wrong--and whether an insight of mine is just a knee-jerk reaction--until the situation unfolds.