How To Prove Any Type Call Using Typology

[Mal12345]

Over the past two years I have examined the various methods of argumentation typologists use here to debate celebrity types. But they all boil down to picking and choosing, or picking and rejecting, the evidence.

For example, Arnold Schartzenegger appears to be an ENFJ in some political speeches he makes, but those are speeches and not reality - they don't represent the "true" Arnold.

And yet Princess Leia appears to be an ENTJ because of speeches she makes - although those are also speeches and not, er, reality.

Carl Jung is an INTP based on his academic writings - although there is such a thing as The Red Book which shows a more personal, thus truer, side of Jung. But apparently that book doesn't count as contrary evidence.

Immanuel Kant is an INTP based on his academic writing style, although his intention to invent a new methodology is that of an INTJ.

--------------

Once a person's mind is made up about type, all evidence to the contrary is considered irrelevant for various reasons. And this judgment is often, if not always, based on the most superficial of evidence.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Well said.

Typing celebrities, while fun, is kind of a pointless endeavor.

Unless you know that person first hand, or know extensively about them, you're only basing your conclusions off of the image or persona they've decided to project on the world.

 

[skylights]

Of course. Confirmation bias.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I've also noticed different types love to identify a celebrity or personal hero as their own type, based on a few superficial characteristics, and can occasionally become quite defensive when someone suggests otherwise. I've certainly been guilty of this on more than one occasion.

 

[Mal12345]

Of course. Confirmation bias.

But how does one avoid confirmation bias?

 

[skylights]

But how does one avoid confirmation bias?

If only I knew! Empirical data collection would be a start, but with something like personality type, that's nigh to impossible to begin with.

 

[Mal12345]

If only I knew! Empirical data collection would be a start, but with something like personality type, that's nigh to impossible to begin with.

I've been fighting against the idea that type can be determined from writing style, so I pretty much focused on that aspect in the OP. I wrote a paper for English class earlier his year that nobody would know came from the pen of an INTP. All anybody can really say - especially given text of unknown origin - is that it is written in the style of such-and-such personality type.

The trick in these cases is to start with text of known origin, pre-determine what that person's type is, and then state that the text was written by a person of the same type.

Given text of unkown authorship, nobody here will touch it. I've already tested this with text from a known author which I posted here without revealing the author's name, and nobody even bothered to post a response.

I have also tested this forum when it comes to typing - let's call them "sub-celebrities." Those were people on reality shows that are non-celebrities. Nobody bothered to touch those either. Why? Because it's more difficult to practice confirmation bias with relatively unknown personalities from which there is little personality data to draw. Therefore, one can't make a positive claim, and nobody likes ambiguity.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Which would be why typology is generally considered more pseudo-science than actual science.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I've been fighting against the idea that type can be determined from writing style, so I pretty much focused on that aspect in the OP. I wrote a paper for English class earlier his year that nobody would know came from the pen of an INTP. All anybody can really say - especially given text of unknown origin - is that it is written in the style of such-and-such personality type.

The trick in these cases is to start with text of known origin, pre-determine what that person's type is, and then state that the text was written by a person of the same type.

Given text of unkown authorship, nobody here will touch it. I've already tested this with text from a known author which I posted here without revealing the author's name, and nobody even bothered to post a response.

I have also tested this forum when it comes to typing - let's call them "sub-celebrities." Those were people on reality shows that are non-celebrities. Nobody bothered to touch those either. Why? Because it's more difficult to practice confirmation bias with relatively unknown personalities from which there is little personality data to draw. Therefore, one can't make a positive claim, and nobody likes ambiguity.

and many INTPs have been known to write beautiful poetry and song. Anyone who didn't know better would most likely assume they were NFs.

Writing style, facial cues, etc...seems too easy to type people purely on these characteristics. Too easy to assign specific traits to certain types, and then stereotypes, both positive and negative, are created which will invariably lead to mistyping. Hence statements like "INTPs are cold, logical Vulcan types" or "ESTJs are boring, unadventurous bureaucrats"

 

[Mal12345]

and many INTPs have been known to write beautiful poetry and song. Anyone who didn't know better would most likely assume they were NFs.

Writing style, facial cues, etc...seems too easy to type people purely on these characteristics. Too easy to assign specific traits to certain types, and then stereotypes, both positive and negative, are created which will invariably lead to mistyping. Hence statements like "INTPs are cold, logical Vulcan types" or "ESTJs are boring, unadventurous bureaucrats"

What do you mean? I AM a cold, logical Vulcan type.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

But like Spock, all NTs secretly have a super-emotional interior.

 

[RaptorWizard]

But like Spock, all NTs secretly have a super-emotional interior.

Well, some would surely have more emotional inner substances than others, but on the whole (assuming you see me as an NT), we make decisions on processes very oriented towards intense and detached thought. I love and deeply value my emotions, but they don't control me.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Well, some would surely have more emotional inner substances than others, but on the whole (assuming you see me as an NT), we make decisions on processes very oriented towards intense and detached thought. I love and deeply value my emotions, but they don't control me.

hence the Spock comparison. Except he doesn't necessarily value his emotions.

 

[Mal12345]

But like Spock, all NTs secretly have a super-emotional interior.

Every external aspect has an opposite internal aspect. Masculine people have a secret effeminate interior. NTs aren't terribly masculine, in my experience. They have a nerdish exterior, while inside is a jock waiting to be born.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

I imagine that the point of most peoples want to discover some famous persons type is to be able emulate them(obvious).

However, it should be the persons character that is admired, and in no way is it necessary to know which type this idol is and the only important aspect of personally knowing someone is that you understand their contribution to humankind and follow or deter yourself from following in their footsteps.

Inspirational, no?

 

[Mal12345]

Assume You're Wrong.

Roger that!