How NOT to do typology

[Dancing_Queen]

Amazing contributions from somewhere else will do, the purpose of this thread is to help us avoid the most common and the most severe typological fallacies.

All right, I wouldn't want to break rules when my stay here has been great so far.

 

[greenfairy]

I approve of this thread.

I have been the recipient of many of these, but also I am certain I have made my share about myself.

 

[Jaguar]

I approve of this thread.

 

[WALMART]

Is quote-bombing Jung an accepted form of debate, or transmitting thoughts on typology?

"The morality of the intuitive is governed neither by intellect nor by feeling; he has his own characteristic morality, which consists in a loyalty to his intuitive view of things and a voluntary submission to its authority, Consideration for the welfare of his neighbours is weak. No solid argument hinges upon their well-being any more than upon his own. Neither can we detect in him any great respect for his neighbour's convictions and customs; in fact, he is not infrequently put down as an immoral and ruthless adventurer... These traits have a rather infantile, or even primitive, stamp; at times they are astonishingly naive, but at times also inconsiderate, crude, or outrageous."

If not, I'm going to grow incredibly bored.

 

[OrangeAppled]

Is quote-bombing Jung an accepted form of debate, or transmitting thoughts on typology?

"The morality of the intuitive is governed neither by intellect nor by feeling; he has his own characteristic morality, which consists in a loyalty to his intuitive view of things and a voluntary submission to its authority, Consideration for the welfare of his neighbours is weak. No solid argument hinges upon their well-being any more than upon his own. Neither can we detect in him any great respect for his neighbour's convictions and customs; in fact, he is not infrequently put down as an immoral and ruthless adventurer... These traits have a rather infantile, or even primitive, stamp; at times they are astonishingly naive, but at times also inconsiderate, crude, or outrageous."

If not, I'm going to grow incredibly bored.

Don't steal my style

It's astonishing how many people here seem to have never read much or any Jung though.... that's what makes those bombs quite effective.

 

[RaptorWizard]

Do Blacks copy ESTP black culture? Do white people sometimes even copy it too?

Because it seems very much like they all want to be gangsters, and your archetypal gangster is a black ESTP (or ISTP I guess).

 

[miss fortune]

I have to wonder why some people actually come into this thread and claim their posts... isn't that kind of like standing in the bottom of a hole with a shovel in hand?

then again, anyone who's "special" enough to say some of the things quoted here and actually believe them can't have that much in the way of [edits self to avoid getting some sort of wrist slap from the high and mighty... fill in something mean and derogatory here] going for them...

 

[RaptorWizard]

Do ISTP philosophers like 'breaking the rules'?

:cop:

 

[miss fortune]

^ your delusions of grandeur are tiring

 

[Society]

ad hominem

^ at least now i know what one can expect from you

This is what I've been trying to explain to someone on another thread for five pages. Yet they insist that the whole world is too stupid to understand their superior intelligence, while failing to see it's them that do a poor job of illustrating their views.

Why didn’t I find this thread before??? It’s PURE GOLD.

let me guess - you've being hiding on PerC? anyway, while people using the N/S dichotomy to rationalize their "nobody understands me" angst is one of the most common things i've seen, it was actually addressing posts by a specific person here. but i've being trying to play nice - by the thread rules - with no mention of origins. i'm not sure if i agree with that (a bit like talking behind someone's back)... but i guess it avoid derails.

 

[Jaguar]

at least now i know what one can expect from you

The truth - which you don't like.

 

[Society]

in accurate definition

let me help you with that:

Jaguar's truth, noun, a half-assed construct built upon easily countered pseudo-intellectual arguments maintained in spite of reason and rationality through the savoring of ignorance and the warm acceptance of easily identifiable fallacies. Synonyms: bullshit, mental masturbation, nonsense.

 

[Jaguar]

let me post more red herring bullshit so I don't have to admit the INFJ women in this forum have nothing to do with my wife.

Expected.

 

[Society]

Expected.

let's see: i explained why your argument was incorrect, lacking any ability or basis to defend your reasoning you went on to claim that my argument is wrong because you think i was wrong about something else entirely, you claimed it was the truth despite the counter reasoning - actually demonstrating that your notions of "the truth" is built on faulty arguments whose faults you where incapable of accepting and so went on with them anyway, and when that was point out, talking about your reasoning rather then where you derived your ad hominem from is understood in your mind to be redirecting from "the issue" that you redirected towards...

great reasoning so far

 

[miss fortune]

let me help you with that:

Jaguar's truth, noun, a half-assed construct built upon easily countered pseudo-intellectual arguments maintained in spite of reason and rationality through the savoring of ignorance and the warm acceptance of easily identifiable fallacies. Synonyms: bullshit, mental masturbation, nonsense.

not to be picky here... (ok, yeah, I'm going to be picky here because it warms the cockles of my heart... whatever) but isn't ALL of the stuff about personality theory pseudo-intellectual and unable to be proven with hard science or even a rigorous statistical study of things?

I mean, you can't call something bullshit if you're defending bullshit on your own in the same breath

 

[Society]

not to be picky here... (ok, yeah, I'm going to be picky here because it warms the cockles of my heart... whatever) but isn't ALL of the stuff about personality theory pseudo-intellectual and unable to be proven with hard science or even a rigorous statistical study of things?

I mean, you can't call something bullshit if you're defending bullshit on your own in the same breath

rofl - you got me there - it is lacking in backup as far as i know, and i am somewhat on the fence about it. that's being said, if your talking about how to apply typology, it makes sense to me to do so under the assumptions of typology. i.e. i'm mostly agnostic, but if i am debating kosher rules with someone who is religious, then i'm going to do so on the basis of interpreting the very book i have near zero belief in - and even if the book is irrational, you can have both rational and irrational interpretations of it - a.k.a. internally consistent or not. the same is applicable here. while we're at it - i don't believe in magic but i can follow the rules of D&D.

so this:

wrong - well, yes his quote is nonsense, but not because it describes traits - what would you call being a [insert function]-dom if not a trait? the disclaimer is just 90s style "trying to be pc and non judgmental" crap. he's wrong because he is pushing the dichotomy of mind onto a dichotomy of life - he's stereotyping intuitive's to have no consequences or actions in the real world, and thus only their theories can have an impact (and thus at best impact people intellectually or emotionally).

assumes that functions exist in regards to how you apply typology. it doesn't defend it or denounces it, it simply follows it.

 

[miss fortune]

[MENTION=15291]Mane[/MENTION]... the problem is that there's so damned many books with their own adherents that I see no point in recognizing any of them until they start making some rational sense to me. If they can't answer my questions as to how and why things are to be the way that they say they're in the reject pile... which is the only pile so far

which is, of course, why I stick to just asking people to explain their point in a rational and scientific manner to me... unless they can convert me their argument is a fail

... otherwise there's the danger of sounding hypocritical

*whatever is aware that someone, somewhere, is reading this post and thinking "that's Ti!" *

 

[Society]

[MENTION=15291]Mane[/MENTION]... the problem is that there's so damned many books with their own adherents that I see no point in recognizing any of them until they start making some rational sense to me. If they can't answer my questions as to how and why things are to be the way that they say they're in the reject pile... which is the only pile so far

hahaha - i see how it works, and its sort of relates to a conversation i had with [MENTION=825]ygolo[/MENTION] a few days ago - what is the simplest thing you can state about typology that is self evident? what is the absolute bear minimum you can state about it as being correct without any evidence to support anything else - not the functions, not the dichotomies, not the extended readings about what the types mean or how they interact... just looking at what we know:

we know that people read typology, look at some types and decide this isn't who they are, and look at other types and thinks that could be them or are sure it is them. perhaps one compliments them more then the other, perhaps one illustrates who they like to see themselves as more then the other, who they think they are.

so at the absolute minimum, we have a typology of ego's - a typology matching some people's sense of identity

 

[miss fortune]

hahaha - i see how it works, and its sort of relates to a conversation i had with [MENTION=825]ygolo[/MENTION] a few days ago - what is the simplest thing you can state about typology that is self evident? what is the absolute bear minimum you can state about it as being correct without any evidence to support anything else - not the functions, not the dichotomies, not the extended readings about what the types mean or how they interact... just looking at what we know:

we know that people read typology, look at some types and decide this isn't who they are, and look at other types and thinks that could be them or are sure it is them. perhaps one compliments them more then the other, perhaps one illustrates who they like to see themselves as more then the other, who they think they are.

so at the absolute minimum, we have a typology of ego's - a typology matching some people's sense of identity

I just have found humans to be so much more complex and varied than the average system gives them credit for being... it's like trying to fit someone into a set of caricatures, sure there will be some aspects that fit, but it won't ever really be them. (or for another comparison, it's like shopping for pants, especially for a woman where the sizing is super stupid... you won't ever find a good fit, you'll just have to compromise with something that won't restrict breathing or fall off of your ass) and I guess I'm not someone who really likes to have to settle for half assed as a means for discrimination

of course people's usage of it turns me against it too

 

[Society]

I just have found humans to be so much more complex and varied than the average system gives them credit for being... it's like trying to fit someone into a set of caricatures, sure there will be some aspects that fit, but it won't ever really be them. (or for another comparison, it's like shopping for pants, especially for a woman where the sizing is super stupid... you won't ever find a good fit, you'll just have to compromise with something that won't restrict breathing or fall off of your ass) and I guess I'm not someone who really likes to have to settle for half assed as a means for discrimination

of course people's usage of it turns me against it too

that seems a bit off - just because something doesn't tell you everything there is to know about a person shouldn't be the basis for assuming that it tells you absolutely nothing