How NOT to do typology

[Kalach]

Does anybody see problems with this?

Yeah, it's contingent analysis, matching observed behavior to type models and supposing a connection. Or, y'know, not Ti, <insult removed>. You wrote a book on typology and you can't determine when you're own preferences are squealing?

I'll tell you what, imma measure your skill at analysis by what analysis you've done. That comment about the messy desk? It comes at the end of a series of posts complaining that no one demonstrates the validity of their type assertions by connecting supposed behavior to what can rightly come from cognition. In short, they were proving at the level of "does he have a messy desk?" Or, "did he plan his escape?" Or "does he have ideals?" Or "did he wait a long time?" These macro behaviors and states can be demonstrated by anyone. But what of the motherfucker's stated imperatives? How often do different types sound the same in matters of importance to themselves? Do they refer to the same kinds of perceptions? Do they demonstrate adherence to the same kinds of judgement? Which terms do they put out there first for you to see? Y'know, typology questions.

Now, you didn't see that that's where I was going with that stuff. In the words of the Bard, would you like to entertain your mother now?

 

[SolitaryWalker]

And this ENFP keeps her desk neat and tidy. It's a good cover.

On the subject of how not to do typology, ever associating intelligence and type, including IQ, which tests for whatever the current committee behind the IQ test decides "determines intelligence", not actual ability or potential.

So, you would argue that all arguments that aspire to establish a connection between one's type and intelligence are specious?

Yeah, it's contingent analysis, matching observed behavior to type models and supposing a connection. Or, y'know, not Ti, <insult removed>. You wrote a book on typology and you can't determine when you're own preferences are squealing?

I'll tell you what, imma measure your skill at analysis by what analysis you've done. That comment about the messy desk? It comes at the end of a series of posts complaining that no one demonstrates the validity of their type assertions by connecting supposed behavior to what can rightly come from cognition. In short, they were proving at the level of "does he have a messy desk?" Or, "did he plan his escape?" Or "does he have ideals?" Or "did he wait a long time?" These macro behaviors and states can be demonstrated by anyone. But what of the motherfucker's stated imperatives? How often do different types sound the same in matters of importance to themselves? Do they refer to the same kinds of perceptions? Do they demonstrate adherence to the same kinds of judgement? Which terms do they put out there first for you to see? Y'know, typology questions.

Now, you didn't see that that's where I was going with that stuff. In the words of the Bard, would you like to entertain your mother now?

Brilliant, thank you for gracing us with your illustrious presence. I won't bother analyzing your post as Voltaire said, "it is a privilege of tremendous genius, especially one who opens up new paths of inquiry to make mistakes with impunity".

Anyhow people, he is all yours, have at it.

 

[Anew Leaf]

First Time Caller, Long Time Listener

Dude! You can't possibly be an NT type, you're too brash and simplistic in your expressions, you've got to be an STP, let's pretend that's just an opinion!

I believe... *thumbs through paper notes* that a comment such as this violates two commandments tenets as stated in the OP of this here thread that was posted back on the first day of the shortest month of this most holy of years, two-thousand and thirteen of our Lord.

The first being:

6. No way this guy is an intuitive type, he is too practical and pragmatic.

I think in the spirit of the OP we can assume all sorts of adjectives to replace the "practical" and "pragmatic" here. In this case the use of the words "brash" and "simplistic."

10. This person is boring, so not an SP.

Again, I think if we look at the spirit of the OP we can see a similar sentence and logic structure being deployed here in the first quote by our test subject "Poster of Mass Postportions" or "PoMP" as it were.

We are basically seeing a fallacy here wherein the PoMP's perspective as that this subject matter couldn't possibly be an NT because he is "brash and simplistic" ergo he must be an "STP".

This is an interesting one to completely dissect because within we see two separate slams against two separate peoples: the NT clan and the STP clan. Apparently the NT clan can not waver in its expressions or forever lose its Medicare card, and the STP clan could not possibly harbor anyone with an iota of intelligence or calm without being accused of being an NT.

In conclusion, I find that our PoMP up above here is possibly not a very good place to start if one wishes to further examine the world of typology from a logical standpoint.

And......... scene.

 

[Kalach]

Brilliant, thank you for gracing us with your illustrious presence. I won't bother analyzing your post as Voltaire said, "it is a privilege of tremendous genius, especially one who opens up new paths of inquiry to make mistakes with impunity".

Anyhow people, he is all yours, have at it.

Yeah sure. You took a sentence out of context and demonstrated how not to demonstrate how not to do typology. Meanwhile, your thread will mean something when you can say why not everyone needs introverted analysis. It'll end this thread, but this thread isn't how you do typology.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

What's introverted analysis?

 

[Kalach]

It's where your desk gets messy.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

It's where your desk gets messy.

That's rather vague, an overview of your theoretical framework would be helpful.

 

[Kalach]

Race you to the bottom: following sentence must have fewer words.

 

[Salomé]

*thinks about starting a "How NOT to do a thread about How NOT to do typology" with this thread as first post*
*decides not*

In truth, this thread would only make sense if this entire forum didn't represent a life lesson in how NOT to do Typology. There are more abuses than uses. More "folks" than professionals.

I'd be more interested to know how it should be used instead of how not to use it.

/Je

How about a How TO Do Typology for us new people?
We don't want to mess it all up, ya know.

/Je

I think that question is far too complicated to be answered in one thread. Besides, typology can be an enormously creative endeavor, I wouldn't want to lead you to develop rigid thinking habits by prescribing specific ways of analyzing problems of typology. I'd rather have you find your own way by learning about the mistakes others are making .

/Ji

Classic "left" v "right" thinking. Former looks for static prescriptions (certainty), latter articulates the journey towards knowledge and understanding (truth).

I relate to the whole "not that" aspect of Introverted Thinking, (natch) however this:

hopefully you'll soon figure out how to do typology by learning to do the opposite of what the people quoted in this thread do

is not a valid teaching method.

You can't learn how to do something by looking exclusively at how not to do it. Because the ways of NOT doing it well are near infinite, and therefore have no definitive "opposite".

Put another way, if you want to learn how to draw it will be more effective to study the old masters than to critique the work of amateurs.

 

[Anew Leaf]

*thinks about starting a "How NOT to do a thread about How NOT to do typology" with this thread as first post*
*decides not*

In truth, this thread would only make sense if this entire forum didn't represent a life lesson in how NOT to do Typology. There are more abuses than uses. More "folks" than professionals.


/Je

/Je

/Ji

Classic "left" v "right" thinking. Former looks for a static prescriptions (certainty), latter articulates the journey towards knowledge and understanding (truth).

I relate to the whole "not that" aspect of Introverted Thinking, (natch) however this:
is not a valid teaching method.

You can't learn how to do something by looking exclusively at how not to do it. Because the ways of NOT doing it well are near infinite, and therefore have no definitive "opposite".

Put another way, if you want to learn how to draw it will be more effective to study the old masters than to critique the work of amateurs.

My spider senses have tingled that this thread is merely the first stepping stone being laid on a garden path to a new book being written.

 

[Jaguar]

I'd be more interested to know how it should be used

Ewe all know the answer to that . . .

being able to recognise one of my own kind.

Gather ye sheep while ye may,
Old Time is still a-flying;
And this same sheep that smiles today
Tomorrow will be dying.

 

[skylights]

So, you would argue that all arguments that aspire to establish a connection between one's type and intelligence are specious?

I would argue that the concept of "intelligence" is vague and poorly measured... and it is misleading to tie a broad definition of intelligence to type.

Though I'd find it completely reasonable to assert something along the lines of "INTP tends to correlate with excellent logical intelligence", or "ESFJ tends to correlate with excellent interpersonal intelligence".

 

[Honor]

And this ENFP keeps her desk neat and tidy. It's a good cover.

On the subject of how not to do typology, ever associating intelligence and type, including IQ, which tests for whatever the current committee behind the IQ test decides "determines intelligence", not actual ability or potential.

Nah, I think this is a politically correct idea but not necessarily a correct idea. I do think that certain types tend to be more intelligent than others, on average.

Using the word "intelligence" makes it a hot-button issue, though, which is kind of a side-note to your point about "intelligence" being a poorly defined trait. Because no one wants to be labeled as "dumb" and then have to question their own value.

 

[skylights]

Nah, I think this is a politically correct idea but not necessarily a correct idea. I do think that certain types tend to be more intelligent than others, on average.

But which ones, and how do you define and measure intelligence?

 

[Honor]

But which ones, and how do you define and measure intelligence?

Defining intelligence is difficult, a point you brought up before and a good one. When I speak about intelligence, I'm not necessarily talking about IQ as a measure of intelligence, although I don't believe that a good IQ test is entirely useless. Off the cuff, I'd say that one's capacity for high-level analysis, reasoning, and perhaps one's memory might be attributes of intelligence.

You might say that the definition is skewed toward NTs and suggest that NFs display an equal amount of intelligence although a different kind. In response to that, I'd say that I think all types have something equally valuable to bring to the table, but I am not sure if empathy, or interpersonal skills, really count as "intelligence." I can't also say that they don't count as a form of intelligence because some people do use high-level reasoning, analysis, and whatever else intelligence is to understand and respond to others. But in my observation, many people who relate well to the masses and are skilled interpersonally do not have a very high capacity for analysis, reasoning, etc. Most importantly, I'd like to point out that even by my original definition, I don't think every F would score lower than every T. Simply being a T doesn't mean you have developed your capacity to reason further than an F, though you may have been more predisposed to do so.

As for which types might be among the more intelligent, I do have some ideas about who they might be, but I wouldn't say on the forum because people get reactive over stuff like that and then, start insane arguments.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

You can't learn how to do something by looking exclusively at how not to do it..

You can't learn how to do something by looking exclusively at how not do it, but that is the first step towards developing a competency. I wouldn't say that we do not need a thread on how to do typology, but that we're merely not ready for it yet. The analysis of common typological errors is not intended to be the exclusive method of cultivating the skill of using typology properly, it is only a prolegomenon or a prelude to an inquiry that would be much more likely to impart knowledge onto our "MBTI folks".

Because the ways of NOT doing it well are near infinite, and therefore have no definitive "opposite".

That is not true, the fallacies of most forum members can be reduced to a very small number of dubious principles or false premises because their ideas are founded on similar sources. Very few MBTI folks began dabbling in the art of "typism" without reading Keirsey or one of the countless internet sites on typology that were heavily influenced by his two volume piece "Please Understand me". Admittedly, Keirseyisms constitute only one source of abuse of typology, but other sources are few in numbers and much less influential. Although the fallacious typological assertions that forum users make are truly countless, their underlying rationales tend to be strikingly similar and that is what I aspire to evince in this thread.

Put another way, if you want to learn how to draw it will be more effective to study the old masters than to critique the work of amateurs.

True, but you need to spend quite a bit of time analyzing your own work and the work of other beginners before you're ready to critique that of masters. When you first learned to write an academic paper, your instructor hopefully had the good sense to refrain from you requiring you to analyze the works of Kant or Tocqueville, instead you critiqued the work of beginners by engaging in a peer-review exercise with your classmates. Similarly, no chess teacher is going to start you off by analyzing the games of Alekhine or Kasparov, instead he'll start with the analysis of your own games against other patzers and gradually lead you up to the level where you are capable of doing that. Similarly to typology, neophytes of chess and academic writing tend to commit a myriad of egregious errors that seem to be infinite in their possibilities, but they could be reduced to a number of dubious principles or false premises. For example, a teacher of a 100 level Composition class can compose a list of common fundamental errors that would include grammatical mistakes, well-known logical fallacies, failure to organize a paper in a way that includes the introduction, the body and the conclusion, failure to include a thesis statement and so on. Chess coaches who specialize in instructing beginners also tend to report that the howlers of their students stem from a remarkably brief list of deficiencies that they share that typically include the following: failure to maintain a tenable pawn-structure, to develop pieces and achieve king-security.

 

[Nicodemus]

Similarly, no chess teacher is going to start you off by analyzing the games of Alekhine or Kasparov, instead he'll start with the analysis of your own games against other patzers and gradually lead you up to the level where you are capable of doing that.

Except Tarrasch, who writes in the introduction to 'Das Schachspiel': "For the proper use of the book I must yet give the beginner some important advice. He would do well to suppress the understandable desire to play a game of chess as soon as possible. The playing of games in the beginner's stage is a certain way to bungling."

 

[Rasofy]

I find the underlying assumptions of this thread pretty presumptuous.

You'd think people who have the nerve to go out of their way to point out a flawled use of a theory would have a lot of insightful knowledge to share... But I don't see that happening here at all.

Even assuming the criticism is deserved, we're not gonna eliminate stupidity/ignorance by indirectly calling people stupid and ignorant.

It's pretty easy to criticize - anyone can do that. And when one doesn't have anything worthwhile to replace the object of the criticism with, it's wiser to remain quiet.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

. And when one doesn't have anything worthwhile to replace the object of the criticism with,

We're getting around to it.

Except Tarrasch, who writes in the introduction to 'Das Schachspiel': "For the proper use of the book I must yet give the beginner some important advice. He would do well to suppress the understandable desire to play a game of chess as soon as possible. The playing of games in the beginner's stage is a certain way to bungling."

There is merit to Tarrasch's injunction, internet chess sites are fraught with patzers who play thousands of blitz games and scarcely improve. Empirical studies on chess competencies showed that frequent recreational gaming among amateurs has a slightly negative correlation with skill development. However, he took a plausible insight to its ludicrous extremes and that is why his position is generally not accepted by most chess instructors, modern and of antiquity. While excessive chess gaming leads a novice to develop thinking habits that tend not to conduce to speedy improvement, not playing at all typically makes it difficult for the student to retain what he has learned in his reflections upon the game. Competence-building in nearly all crafts requires the novice to not only understand the underlying theory of the undertaking, but to also learn how to apply the theory in practice: chess is no exception.

 

[Anew Leaf]

We're getting around to it.



There is merit to Tarrasch's injunction, internet chess sites are fraught with patzers who play thousands of blitz games and scarcely improve. Empirical studies on chess competencies showed that frequent recreational gaming among amateurs has a slightly negative correlation with skill development. However, he took a plausible insight to its ludicrous extremes and that is why his position is generally not accepted by most chess instructors, modern and of antiquity. While excessive chess gaming leads a novice to develop thinking habits that tend not to conduce to speedy improvement, not playing at all typically makes it difficult for the student to retain what he has learned in his reflections upon the game. Competence-building in nearly all crafts requires the novice to not only understand the underlying theory of the undertaking, but to also learn how to apply the theory in practice: chess is no exception.

That's uh lot uf words to basically say that *gasp* practice makes perfect... eventually, etc.

I am not sure that typology is akin to chess either. Also have a bunch of amateurs make passive aggressive guesses in a thread where no real forward thinking is activated seems like a verbal circle jerk who's sole purpose besmirches the good name of this entire enterprise known as the central of all, the center of being, typology central. Or something about stuff.