What is your interest in typology?

[reckful]

Sorry just 1 quickly pops to mind now, and is a great example:
Prometheus rising >> Author thinks N is highest rank, followed by T, followed by F, followed by S as the lowest. (Author is probably a nice guy who found out about the types in his own way, but mistakenly thinks its evolution of the human brain. Author doesn't know its interconnected/interdependant types that require each other.)

Prometheus Rising - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

P.S. Also any book on the AI subject of "the singularity", about the fantasy that one supercomputer could be all powerful, is basically saying that one type (this computer's type) can be superior. Same for any religion with a personal/idol-ized god of a certain type, the singularity is just a new theme. Its harder to find a book that doesn't think one type is superior, than the other way around.

Does Wilson's book talk in terms of the Jungian (or MBTI) functions, or are you the one who's decided that Wilson's brain model corresponds to those? Have you actually read Wilson's book?

The post of yours that I replied to was in response to BadOctopus talking about someone believing their MBTI "type is the best," and you said "whole books are written about how the author ranks the types."

I asked if you could name three of those "books," and you only pointed to one book, and it doesn't sound to me like that book even discussed Jungian/MBTI typology, much less "ranked the types."

I've been participating in online MBTI discussions for five years, and I've never seen anyone point to a book where the author purports to "rank the types" in terms of which ones are more "evolved." And it sounds like you don't really know of any such books, either.

 

[chickpea]

I've always had some type of interest in different systems of categorizing anything, but especially people. I studied astrology from a pretty young age, was into any cheesy personality quiz in teen girl magazines, moved on to internet quizzes which introduced me to MBTI.

I don't approach it from a self-help perspective as much.. enneagram more so than MBTI, I guess. It definitely sheds lights on certain patterns in myself, or interactions between people with different types. but I first found this forum because of the pop culture & type section. i like guessing the types of characters, or celebrities, or people I know irl. just gives natural assumptions or groupings of people a different language, IMO.

 

[Researcher]

Does Wilson's book talk in terms of the Jungian (or MBTI) functions, or are you the one who's decided that Wilson's brain model corresponds to those? Have you actually read Wilson's book?

The post of yours that I replied to was in response to BadOctopus talking about someone believing their MBTI "type is the best," and you said "whole books are written about how the author ranks the types."

I asked if you could name three of those "books," and you only pointed to one book, and it doesn't sound to me like that book even discussed Jungian/MBTI typology, much less "ranked the types."

I've been participating in online MBTI discussions for five years, and I've never seen anyone point to a book where the author purports to "rank the types" in terms of which ones are more "evolved." And it sounds like you don't really know of any such books, either.

The author is typing people in his own way (yes, a non-MTBI, non-Jungian way) and saying one type is better than the other. That is the whole point. It is unimportant which typing system he uses or how he orders his types. You are missing the whole point.

The point was simply to point to a book that says one type is better than the other, regardless of typing system, and regardless whether my conversion of his typing to S>F>T>N is correct or not.

 

[reckful]

The author is typing people in his own way (yes, a non-MTBI, non-Jungian way) and saying one type is better than the other. That is the whole point. It is unimportant which typing system he uses or how he orders his types. You are missing the whole point.

The point was simply to point to a book that says one type is better than the other, regardless of typing system, and regardless whether my conversion of his typing to S>F>T>N is correct or not.

I'm not "missing" any point. The post of yours that I replied to was in response to BadOctopus talking about someone believing their MBTI "type is the best," and you said "whole books are written about how the author ranks the types."

With all due respect, I suspect that the majority of the people who read your post took you to be referring to the same "types" that BadOctopus was referring to — namely, the MBTI types. In any case, there was certainly plenty of room for misunderstanding.

And that's why I asked for a clarification. And in your first reply, instead of saying, "Oh, I wasn't talking about MBTI types, I was just talking about ranking kinds of personalities," you instead offered the Wilson book as a "great example," explaining, "Prometheus rising >> Author thinks N is highest rank, followed by T, followed by F, followed by S as the lowest."

But now you've changed your tune, and now you're saying, "Wilson is typing people in his own way (yes, a non-MTBI, non-Jungian way) and saying one type is better than the other. That is the whole point. It is unimportant which typing system he uses or how he orders his types."

So... thanks for playing, and thanks for the (delayed) clarification.