Typism vs. Racism

[Society]

Let's give this a try:

Jews are warm and energetic. They need approval from others to feel good about themselves. They are hurt by indifference and don't understand unkindness. They are very giving people, who get a lot of their personal satisfaction from the happiness of others. They want to be appreciated for who they are, and what they give. They're very sensitive to others, and freely give practical care. Jews are such caring individuals, that they sometimes have a hard time seeing or accepting a difficult truth about someone they care about.

Doesn't quite work, does it? not for my own ethnicity (Jewish), not for any race... And yet it's perfectly reasonable for an MBTI type. Why?

 

[KDude]

What are you talking about? Every Jew is like that.

 

[Abbey]

1) Because MBTI types are about your personality- warm, energetic, giving, sensitive, caring are words to describe a personality, not words to describe a race. People in the same race act and think differently even though they may have similar habits based off on tradition, upbringing or history (stereotypes).

2) You can drawn a lot of conclusions about people based off of how they prefer different cognitive functions. Actions come from thoughts, thoughts from cognitive preference. Therefore, you can determine actions people will take based off of how they prefer to think about themselves and the world.

 

[Cellmold]

1) Because MBTI types are about your personality- warm, energetic, giving, sensitive, caring are words to describe a personality, not words to describe a race. People in the same race act and think differently even though they may have similar habits based off on tradition, upbringing or history (stereotypes).

2) You can drawn a lot of conclusions about people based off of how they prefer different cognitive functions. Actions come from thoughts, thoughts from cognitive preference. Therefore, you can determine actions people will take based off of how they prefer to think about themselves and the world.

But actions can also be influenced by external factors and the environmental pressures of a persons surroundings. Not to mention the inner workings of a psyche can be changed by any other number of internal realisations.

For example if a person becomes aware of a habit of their actions, they may become increasingly vigilant against such habits, to the point they eliminate them and create new ones.

Functions can result in behaviour, but it is difficult to discern where cognition starts and other influences end.

The point Mane raises* here is a good one to consider as it concerns the spreading of general traits over large bodies of people in an assumption that if a person is of X catagorisation then they must have Z traits. Because a large portion of X catagorisation usually possess Z traits according to subjective experiences.

*Ive since been informed mane is a sly, beer-bellied harlot, and didnt intend to make such a point at all.

 

[Society]

spreading of general traits over large bodies of people in an assumption that if a person is of X catagorisation then they must have Z traits.

...except that with typology, a person is required to have Z traits to qualify for X categorization in the first place - when the person doesn't, we call that a mistyping.

 

[Cellmold]

...except that with typology, a person is required to have Z traits to qualify for X categorization in the first place - when the person doesn't, we call that a mistyping.

I call it a misrepresentation of unproven data.

 

[Little_Sticks]

I see it as something I can learn and apply to understand someone (and myself) transiently in a situation. It implies it would be erroneous to apply types/personalities universally or, even generally, as that would carry an assumption, whereas perceiving how things are in a given period of time carries no assumptions; although I suppose it may still carry personal beliefs about how I'm perceiving someone's behavior and state of mind. I think it's more appropriate however, because as long as I am open to letting someone correct any of my possible misperceptions, the idea that an accurate and true understanding can be reached between people is then possible, whereas assumptions do not allow for correction.

 

[Nicki]

What?

 

[Salomé]

You're not too smart ... for a Jew.

 

[Aesthete]

Is anybody else in the mood for Jew jokes now?

 

[Bamboo]

Individual takes test -> type is based on result. We can assume that everyone who is the same MBTI type would answer the questions on the test in a similar way or in fact DID answer them in a similar way. So there is a real difference between groups.

Race is based on being born into a group. Can you assume that all members of the group think the same way? Not really, it's entirely too broad, though they have similar cultural experiences.

---

Also, MBTI groups are personality categorizations, so personality assumptions make sense (though MBTI is rather flawed in some ways). Race groups are based on...race. Personality is an independent variable.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Individual takes test -> type is based on result. We can assume that everyone who is the same MBTI type would answer the questions on the test in a similar way or in fact DID answer them in a similar way. So there is a real difference between groups.

Race is based on being born into a group. Can you assume that all members of the group think the same way? Not really, it's entirely too broad, though they have similar cultural experiences.

---

Also, MBTI groups are personality categorizations, so personality assumptions make sense (though MBTI is rather flawed in some ways). Race groups are based on...race. Personality is an independent variable.

Did you know that the National Academy of Sciences studied the MBTI system and concluded that only the E/I access had a measure of validity. Check out this thread I began a while ago.

http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...y-matrices/18264-measuring-validity-mbti.html

Also consider that while racism is not reasoned, there are cultural norms that exist within various sub-cultures that can influence a great deal about how a person communicates and what their assumptions are about the world. I think a person would be hard pressed to prove that absolute assumptions about individuals in an MBTI group was in some way a more reasoned way of thinking than racism.

 

[Society]

Individual takes test -> type is based on result. We can assume that everyone who is the same MBTI type would answer the questions on the test in a similar way or in fact DID answer them in a similar way. So there is a real difference between groups.

Race is based on being born into a group. Can you assume that all members of the group think the same way? Not really, it's entirely too broad, though they have similar cultural experiences.

exactly what i was gearing the thread towards.

basically i noticed a common phenomena where people are constantly finger pointing towards typism and equate it to racism whenever anything is said about a type that isn't a wonderfully framed picture with pretty flowers on the side. i figured i'd make a little corner for that discussion to actually take place, somewhere in the back of the typoC motel that i can always link up when needed.

 

[miss fortune]

discrimination is discrimination... you can't paint everyone with the same brush just because they all fit into some loosely defined category

of course what's really stupid is that there are plenty of people on here who are perfectly happy to discriminate against others based on a scientifically disproven theory... I guess this means that they feel that they need more to hate in their life so they start making shit up? Of course that's always been the path that those who enjoy discriminating take...

 

[Bamboo]

Did you know that the National Academy of Sciences studied the MBTI system and concluded that only the E/I access had a measure of validity. Check out this thread I began a while ago.

http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...y-matrices/18264-measuring-validity-mbti.html

I made a post a long time ago on comparison to Big 5. I thought they found more correlations. No, I didn't know but I'm not that surprised.

Individual takes test -> type is based on result. We can assume that everyone who is the same MBTI type would answer the questions on the test in a similar way or in fact DID answer them in a similar way. So there is a real difference between groups.

Ah! Logical fallacy.

Let's say 100 people flip a coin. 50 people in one group get heads, 50 in the other get tails. Just because both groups got the same answers doesn't mean there is really any difference between the groups at all because heads or tails wasn't chosen meaningfully.

But I'd assume MBTI has a little more predictable correlation to something than a coin toss. Maybe not. (you're not talking to a big believer in the system, I think it's a tool for introspection and I like reading the profiles).

Also consider that while racism is not reasoned, there are cultural norms that exist within various sub-cultures that can influence a great deal about how a person communicates and what their assumptions are about the world. I think a person would be hard pressed to prove that absolute assumptions about individuals in an MBTI group was in some way a more reasoned way of thinking than racism.

Yeah, I wouldn't ignore that cultural experiences shape personality. Which I think create most of the differences between racial groups, because in past and present history racial identity often draws the lines between cultural groups. (I'm skeptical about the actual personality variations that exist based soley due to race, certainly the common ones that seem to be based in hate prejudice.)

Of course, what assumptions are you making, and how large is your racial group? "Asians" are very diverse group (subcultures), but if you're assuming their natural hair color is dark/black, you're probably correct.

I can't think of a good example with MBTI. Then again, it seems like there are patterns in relationships. Of course, people say the same thing about astrology. Maybe it's all just a trick of statistics and perception.

 

[Society]

Yeah, I wouldn't ignore that cultural experiences shape personality. Which I think create most of the differences between racial groups, because in past and present history racial identity often draws the lines between cultural groups.

funny, i've had a recent discussion with someone who thinks i'm an enneagram 7w8 and display a lot of 8ish traits - assertive, blunt, aggressive, etc', and i find myself consistently arguing that it doesn't make me a wing 8, it simply makes me Israeli, those are my cultural norms sunk deep into my baby Si.

which brings me to the next point:

a scientifically disproven theory...

it's just freaking adjectives.

sometime in - probably prehistoric time - people brought on the concept of brave vs. cautious.

maybe it was used to determine who goes boar hunting and who sneaks to steal the bird's eggs, we don't know the story of how it came to be, but either way, the need to describe tendencies within the fight or flight spectrum of questions was important enough for the concepts to stick around. it has being used for a state of mind ("be careful", "i am feeling brave", "this was a brave act", etc'), and it can be used for a personality, "such a brave soldier". philosophical and poetic arguments about what it truly means and implies ensue.
and yes, as a personality description, to the extent that it has any consistency, i can absolutely have different opinions about people who are cautious and people who are brave: some people relate bravery to stupidity, others see calculated risk management as a counter argument showing that it's separate from intelligence. depending on my own style, i can absolutely not want to hunt with someone "brave" enough to disclose our location to a pack of wolves when it's avoidable, or someone "cautious" enough to run on me when we encounter something hostile. if my experience with cautious people is that they will blurb out on their own tribe's strategic weaknesses whenever they get caught by an enemy tribe, and that pattern keeps repeating itself, i will absolutely be pissed about certain behaviors and aspects of cautious people. whether someone is cautious or brave can also interact with other factors, like whether someone is loyal to themselves or to their tribe, or even something as concrete as whether someone is a parent yet or not.

can the concept of bravery and cautiousness be scientifically disproved? and am i being hateful and discriminating when i would rather not want to go boar hunting with someone who'd run the moment we're in danger?

 

[Bamboo]

it's just freaking adjectives.


can the concept of bravery and cautiousness be scientifically disproved? and am i being hateful and discriminating when i would rather not want to go boar hunting with someone who'd run the moment we're in danger?

i understand that discrimination is valuable, but what if the concept of "brave vs cautious" really wasn't a continuum, but complimentary traits?

 

[miss fortune]

[MENTION=15291]Mane[/MENTION] ... look at the method of data collection and assessment for MBTI. Do you think that those who would be cowards would admit to such a thing if asked?

self reporting tests and surveys are biased and anyone who thinks otherwise is either lying to themselves or blind.

It's a highly flawed test design with a low chance that someone will retest as the same type later unless they know what they're choosing, which makes it a poor measure for labeling someone for life as one type of person or another... it's unreliable enough that jobs can't base your acceptance upon it legally for goodness sake (which is what it sounds like you want to do with your hunting example )

Not to mention that anyone who knows anything about survey research methodology knows that the development process for the test would get laughed out of any journal if published now.

So no, the test is not a valid way to judge someone

 

[Ginkgo]

Let's give this a try:



Doesn't quite work, does it? not for my own ethnicity (Jewish), not for any race... And yet it's perfectly reasonable for an MBTI type. Why?

My answer is that it does "work" in both instances only in the sense that anecdotal conditions allow such descriptions to be accepted once recognized. However, racial issues tend to be met with far more skepticism than typological issues because "type" has virtually no barbarous connotation to the average person taking a type test first time through.

I'm going to challenge your statement that such descriptions don't work in terms of race - If they don't, then what distinguishes Jewish people from other people? If there are no distinctions to be made, why employ the term "Jew" at all, if not for the arbitrary labeling of the groups history and current locale?

Did you know that the National Academy of Sciences studied the MBTI system and concluded that only the E/I access had a measure of validity. Check out this thread I began a while ago.

http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...y-matrices/18264-measuring-validity-mbti.html

I agree with their conclusion as far as it addresses cognitive predilections but think it's ironic that emphasis given by most MBTI profiles largely overshadows the I/E dichotomy with the other dichotomies. I guess they've done that in a behavioristic approach.

 

[Coriolis]

Let's give this a try:

Jews are warm and energetic. They need approval from others to feel good about themselves. They are hurt by indifference and don't understand unkindness. They are very giving people, who get a lot of their personal satisfaction from the happiness of others. They want to be appreciated for who they are, and what they give. They're very sensitive to others, and freely give practical care. Jews are such caring individuals, that they sometimes have a hard time seeing or accepting a difficult truth about someone they care about.

Doesn't quite work, does it? not for my own ethnicity (Jewish), not for any race... And yet it's perfectly reasonable for an MBTI type. Why?

The above doesn't work because it is not valid. These generalizations do not correctly describe Jews, even in some statistical sense. Other generalizations are valid, like those based on genetics and related to the greater tendency of Jews to get certain diseases, as with blacks and sickle-cell anemia.

MBTI presumes that there is some actual distinction among individuals of different types. This has indeed been demonstrated for E/I, and there is some evidence for J/P as well. Since these distinctions are not as readily obvious or known as distinctions of race, gender or culture, however, if we want to know where we fall, we need some way to estimate that. Like any other set of generalized characteristics, types will not apply uniformly to everyone within them, and should not be used to inform decisions that fall outside their scope.

The problem is basically twofold:

1) Some generalizations made about a given group have no validity.

2) Some valid generalizations are used in an inappropriate way to make judgments that are unrelated to that quality or characteristic (e.g. "Jews are more likely to get disease X so I won't rent my apartment to a Jew"). This is usually what we mean when we criticise an action as discrimination.