Overview of Typology

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

I read your post and am pretty well-versed in how you view the relationship between unconscious processes and personality. Lets make sure we're on the same page, though.

We're looking for a system that helps us understand how people work and to make sense of their behavior. If we assume that behavior is based on core patterns (or "predilections"), unconscious or not, then understanding this core will give us really good insight into behavior or "issue" that emanate from this core, in theory. So the question turns to what the composition of this core really is. You seem to put a premium on typology, but I don't, because I find it to be shallow. I'll try and explain why, though I don't know if I can (or care to) convince you.

Trying to understand people is really asking "why?" Why did he do that? Why does he need that? What is he trying to accomplish? How does it all fit together? I think we can agree as far as that goes.

Typology as a system to excavate and delineate this core too narrow. There are themes in people's behaviors that having nothing to do with the way you take in information or make decisions. These themes relate to their needs, fears, and defense mechanisms. Attachment theory is a great example of how the need for security can influence one's behavior and psychology in relationships. Buddhist psychology is another useful system. When you think, predominantly, in terms of Jungian typology, you end up missing a lot of information.

Typology enthusiasts like youself, I suspect, have this notion that the basic units of personality -- the core -- is comprised of the cognitive processes. That makes it very difficult for them to see anything but cognitive processes, and they get caught up and stuck in thinking that people's cores are only comprised of some combination of these 4 functions. I think it's a huge mistake. It's just one way of categorizing personality, and, as I've tried to explain, not even a great one.

Edahn

P.S. the stuff you said about psychology not being concerned with intrinsic cognitive faculties is BS:

In short, typology can evince our instincs towards particular ways of thinking. It is an important subject because unlike psychology, which is primarily concerned with empirical investigation of extrinsic circumstances surrounding the individual, it is concerned with the intrinsic cognitive faculties of the individual which are not as easily influenced by extrinsic circumstances.

Personality psychology, abnormal psychology, psychopharmacology, and clinical psychology (psychoanalysis) are 4 areas in psychology where "internal predilections" play a key role. Embedded in all of them is an assumption that there are stable, internal habits/factors that can be measured, labeled, and treated, respectively.

oh, boy, reading the exchange between the last two posters is like watching someone speaking in French to someone who is unilingual in Cantonese
Entertaining (to a point) for the rest of us, but clearly must be frustrating for the Frenchman

Are you calling me French?

 

[THEANO]

Are you calling me French?

oh, sorry! Did you want to be the Japanese one?

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

oh, sorry! Did you want to be the Japanese one?

évidemment pas vous l'américain stupide!

 

[THEANO]

évidemment pas vous l'américain stupide!

Comme je ne suis pas un Américain, je ne prendrai pas personnellement

 

[SolitaryWalker]

But, there seems to be an inherent assumption with typology that although we cannot assign an observed behaviour to make a type falsifiable (e.g., of your Mama T & Addy H), it is, however, interestingly easy enough to use behaviour to verify a type. Why this skewness?

"I am right, and this example proves it so."
"I am still right regardless of this specific example proving it otherwise"

....ehhhhhhhhhhh?

It's like the impenetrable wall of the Virgin Mary.

I do not understand your question.

Obviously an inquiry into philosophy of mind starts with something that could be observed. The observations are made of patterns of thought, or of the mind in a general sense, and not of concrete behavior.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I read your post and am pretty well-versed in how you view the relationship between unconscious processes and personality. Lets make sure we're on the same page, though.

We're looking for a system that helps us understand how people work and to make sense of their behavior. If we assume that behavior is based on core patterns (or "predilections"), unconscious or not, then understanding this core will give us really good insight into behavior or "issue" that emanate from this core, in theory. So the question turns to what the composition of this core really is. You seem to put a premium on typology, but I don't, because I find it to be shallow. I'll try and explain why, though I don't know if I can (or care to) convince you.

Trying to understand people is really asking "why?" Why did he do that? Why does he need that? What is he trying to accomplish? How does it all fit together? I think we can agree as far as that goes.

Typology as a system to excavate and delineate this core too narrow. There are themes in people's behaviors that having nothing to do with the way you take in information or make decisions. These themes relate to their needs, fears, and defense mechanisms. Attachment theory is a great example of how the need for security can influence one's behavior and psychology in relationships. Buddhist psychology is another useful system. When you think, predominantly, in terms of Jungian typology, you end up missing a lot of information.

Typology enthusiasts like youself, I suspect, have this notion that the basic units of personality -- the core -- is comprised of the cognitive processes. That makes it very difficult for them to see anything but cognitive processes, and they get caught up and stuck in thinking that people's cores are only comprised of some combination of these 4 functions. I think it's a huge mistake. It's just one way of categorizing personality, and, as I've tried to explain, not even a great one.

Edahn

P.S. the stuff you said about psychology not being concerned with intrinsic cognitive faculties is BS:



Personality psychology, abnormal psychology, psychopharmacology, and clinical psychology (psychoanalysis) are 4 areas in psychology where "internal predilections" play a key role. Embedded in all of them is an assumption that there are stable, internal habits/factors that can be measured, labeled, and treated, respectively.





Are you calling me French?

Edahn, you're very confused.

You do not seem to understand what psychology is in the academical sense. Of course there are branches of psychology that are concerned with questions of philosophy of mind, but that is not the main focus of academic psychology. In the most technical sense, those psychologists are doing philosophy of mind and not academic psychology.

Secondly,

There are themes in people's behaviors that having nothing to do with the way you take in information or make decisions.":

I would be very impressed if you could name one psychological activity that we perform that does not involve unconscious processing or conscious valuation.

.These themes relate to their needs, fears, and defense mechanisms. Attachment theory is a great example of how the need for security can influence one's behavior and psychology in relationships. Buddhist psychology is another useful system. When you think, predominantly, in terms of Jungian typology, you end up missing a lot of information.":

This makes no sense at all!

When we fear something, is it the case that this emotive process has nothing to do with how we feel (conscious valuation ) and nothign to do with how we experience the environment unconsciously?

All of our emotive processes are either decision-making or unconscious collection of information. Everything that is in our psyche somehow derived from the external environment and we have reflected upon it with our conscious valuation.

Lets assume for your conclusion to be true. Some psychological activities are not properties of unconscious perception or are not properties of conscious valuation.

Could any entity of our psychology not be a property of unconscious perception? If we did not perceive it, or in any way interact with it, it cannot be in our mind at all. Thus, the answer is no.

Can any property of our psychology not be a faculty of conscious valuation? Certainly, as there are many instincts and predilections within our mind that we are not consciously aware of. Such as for instance, our tendency to associate bread with the idea of China which may be a result of our mother baking bread and telling us about China at the same time when we were 5.

Yet the province of conscious valuation is rich, when we experience any of the passions you describe, or the attachment theory you cited may describe we are making emotive valuations. When we try to get an idea of what those passions are, or trying to understand the structure of any particular entity, we are using Thinking. To be more precise, conscious 'judgment' happens on an unsconsious level as we cannot help but have thoughts like 'what is this' or associate a certain feeling with a particular object.

Thus, both judgment and perception are unconscious, judgment is best defined as an unconscious process of translation of unconscious perceptions into notions that could be regarded from the standpoint of conscious scrutiny. Making decisions is a sophistication of judgment, but not the typological essence of judgment itself.

In summary, we either unconsciously make impressions of our environment (perception) and inevitably transduce those impressions into something intelligible. Conscious value judgment and logical reasoning are the sophistication of the latter process.

All of our psychological activities inevitably involve making unconscious impressions of our environment and transducing it into what is intelligible.

That makes it very difficult for them to see anything but cognitive processes, and they get caught up and stuck in thinking that people's cores are only comprised of some combination of these 4 functions. I think it's a huge mistake. It's just one way of categorizing personality, and, as I've tried to explain, not even a great one.
.

Of course it is a threat to get caught up in those 'simplistic 4 functions'. That is, if you have a very crude and simplistic idea of what those functions are, such as the idea that you have. They are incredibly complex in themselves and in a very general sense explain all activities of the human mind. In order to get a more specific idea of how those functions work, inquiry into philosophy of mind is necessary.

The problem appears to be that you fundamentally misunderstand what those typological functions are. The definition of Judgment as simply 'decision making' is false. This is what MBTI popularizers propounded as a way to provide a simple enough notion of what judgment is to the masses. That, needless to say is an oversimplification. Perception is not collection of information either in the most conventional sense of the word. It is mere unconscious inception of the external world. Judgment is not either logic (if A then B) or a value judgment (bread is good) judgment is a process of translation of unconscious perceptions into a conscious perspective.

@Blue -- why is intuition considered further from "the will" than sensing?

Sensing is very visceral, very closely attuned with instincts, yet Intuition is highly cerebral because it detaches from one concrete, sensorial perception in order to attain the liberty necessary to conjure abstract images.

In short, because Sensing is attuned with the instinct, yet Intuition detaches from the instinct.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Something tells me I'm replying against my better judgment. Oh well. Here goes.

Edahn, you're very confused.

BlueWing, you're very condescending.

You do not seem to understand what psychology is in the academical sense. Of course there are branches of psychology that are concerned with questions of philosophy of mind, but that is not the main focus of academic psychology. In the most technical sense, those psychologists are doing philosophy of mind and not academic psychology.

Is that supposed to be convincing? It sounds to me like you're just repeating what you said above, but this time admitting that psychologists practice what I say they did, but then saying that they're not real psychologists. Thank you for a great illustration of the No True Scotsman fallacy, BW.

Secondly, I would be very impressed if you could name one psychological activity that we perform that does not involve unconscious processing or conscious valuation.

No no no. Just because something is involved doesn't mean it's at the bottom of what's happening. For example, molecules are involved in chemical reactions, but if we really want to dig down, we would want to look at subatomic physics, maybe even quantum physics. Even worse, you could use your logic to say that in studying chemistry, we should study time, since time is always involved and even required for a chemical reaction to transpire.

This seems to be the argument you make in the next chapter of your post: that since something is involved, it must be that it's the most fundamental part. (Maybe I'm wrong and you didn't argue that.) Just classifying what your mind is doing is not enough, especially when your classification system is bulky and clumsy like typology.

This makes no sense at all!

When we fear something, is it the case that this emotive process has nothing to do with how we feel (conscious valuation ) and nothign to do with how we experience the environment unconsciously?

All of our emotive processes are either decision-making or unconscious collection of information. Everything that is in our psyche somehow derived from the external environment and we have reflected upon it with our conscious valuation.

Lets assume for your conclusion to be true. Some psychological activities are not properties of unconscious perception or are not properties of conscious valuation.

Could any entity of our psychology not be a property of unconscious perception? If we did not perceive it, or in any way interact with it, it cannot be in our mind at all. Thus, the answer is no.

Can any property of our psychology not be a faculty of conscious valuation? Certainly, as there are many instincts and predilections within our mind that we are not consciously aware of. Such as for instance, our tendency to associate bread with the idea of China which may be a result of our mother baking bread and telling us about China at the same time when we were 5.

Yet the province of conscious valuation is rich, when we experience any of the passions you describe, or the attachment theory you cited may describe we are making emotive valuations. When we try to get an idea of what those passions are, or trying to understand the structure of any particular entity, we are using Thinking. To be more precise, conscious 'judgment' happens on an unsconsious level as we cannot help but have thoughts like 'what is this' or associate a certain feeling with a particular object.

Thus, both judgment and perception are unconscious, judgment is best defined as an unconscious process of translation of unconscious perceptions into notions that could be regarded from the standpoint of conscious scrutiny. Making decisions is a sophistication of judgment, but not the typological essence of judgment itself.

In summary, we either unconsciously make impressions of our environment (perception) and inevitably transduce those impressions into something intelligible. Conscious value judgment and logical reasoning are the sophistication of the latter process.

All of our psychological activities inevitably involve making unconscious impressions of our environment and transducing it into what is intelligible.

Sorry. I tried reading this about 3 times, but I just don't have it in me to try and decode whatever the fuck it is you're trying to say. Lose the jargon or lose the audience, I guess.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Is that supposed to be convincing? It sounds to me like you're just repeating what you said above, but this time admitting that psychologists practice what I say they did, but then saying that they're not real psychologists. Thank you for a great illustration of the No True Scotsman fallacy, BW. .

Where is the fallacy here? One either is a psychologist or is not depending one the definition of himself and the definition of a psychologist. I don't see the error in judgment at all.

The bottom line is, psychology, as an academic discipline relies very heavily on the empirical method of investigation. For this reason, philosophy of mind is not within the scope of such a subject.

Basically, your position is as follows;

-I do not know what exactly psychology is, nor do I care to find out.
-I think it is unfair to say that some things are psychology others are not.
-I do not know what exactly the functions of typology are, nor do I care to find out.
-I just think that they have something to do with making decisions and collecting information.
-I do not know what exactly it means to make decisions or collect information, and I do not much care.
-I just know that all functions of typology are about making decisions and collecting information, and I refuse to change my mind! But I dont even know what exactly that is!

Sorry. I tried reading this about 3 times, but I just don't have it in me to try and decode whatever the fuck it is you're trying to say. Lose the jargon or lose the audience, I guess.

Don't worry, you wouldn't understand it anyways.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Don't worry, you wouldn't understand it anyways.

Maybe you're right, but it's definitely not something I'm worried about.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Where is the fallacy here? One either is a psychologist or is not depending one the definition of himself and the definition of a psychologist. I don't see the error in judgment at all.

The error is in the fact that psychology doesn't have a definition that's as rigid as you pretend it is. The field of psychology is wider than you think and embraces some of the characteristics you think are exclusive to philosophy. When I showed you a counter example of PSYCHOLOGISTS, who study western psychology, you dismissed it as saying that those people were practicing philosophy of mind and not psychology.

The bottom line is, psychology, as an academic discipline relies very heavily on the empirical method of investigation. For this reason, philosophy of mind is not within the scope of such a subject.

Psychoanalysis is a great example of an area of psychology that cannot rely on empiricism. So...you know...wtf.

Basically, your position is as follows;

My position is that you don't know what you're talking about, and that you're so busy crafting boundaries between disciplines that you forget that the boundaries are your own, and not part of the discipline itself.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

The error is in the fact that psychology doesn't have a definition that's as rigid as you pretend it is. The field of psychology is wider than you think and embraces some of the characteristics you think are exclusive to philosophy. When I showed you a counter example of PSYCHOLOGISTS, who study western psychology, you dismissed it as saying that those people were practicing philosophy of mind and not psychology..

That again depends on your definition of psychology.

Psychoanalysis is a great example of an area of psychology that cannot rely on empiricism. So...you know...wtf...

There are many professors of psychology in some universities (in fact most) who do not deem psychonanalysis to be part of the science of psychology. Yet certain others disagree.



I am working with the former definition. The one true scotsman fallacy occurs when the person dismisses a proposition as irrelevant to the discussion when it is not truly irrelevant. In this case, I have defined what psychology is from the beginning and certain ideas you have offered are incompatible with that definition.

By the way, what is wrong with having rigid boundaries? You are not loosing any information, you just have it all neatly organized and therefore more easily accessed when you need it.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

That again depends on your definition of psychology.

There are many professors of psychology in some universities (in fact most) who do not deem psychonanalysis to be part of the science of psychology. Yet certain others disagree.

I am working with the former definition.

This "conversation" has become worthless, so I'm dropping out. It's just a word game now.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

This "conversation" has become worthless, so I'm dropping out. It's just a word game now.

Its important to get through the word game if you want to discuss the more important topics, as only through words can we adequately discuss bigger ideas.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Its important to get through the word game if you want to discuss the more important topics, as only through words can we adequately discuss bigger ideas.

True, but the other topics have been destroyed by your arrogance and reliance on jargon and my short attention span. If neither of us budge, there isn't much more to discuss.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

True, but the other topics have been destroyed by your arrogance and reliance on jargon and my short attention span. If neither of us budge, there isn't much more to discuss.

Lets try this.

1.We are always interacting with our environment. I call this perception.

How do we do this? If I go to another room my mind will inevitably perceive what is there. I cannot stop myself from noticing the walls, the windows and the floor.

2. We inevitably translate our perceptions into conscious judgments. We would be tempted to say, this wall is red, or the floor smells good.

I call this judgment. Logical reasoning or intricate value judgments are sophistications of this process.

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

Inevitably, we unconsciously interact with our environment and we try to translate our unconscious impressions into intelligible notions. Because all things are either consciously known by us, or are unconscious, I do not see the error in saying that perception and judgment outline human psychology in a very general sense.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Lets try this.

1.We are always interacting with our environment. I call this perception.

How do we do this? If I go to another room my mind will inevitably perceive what is there. I cannot stop myself from noticing the walls, the windows and the floor.

2. We inevitably translate our perceptions into conscious judgments. We would be tempted to say, this wall is red, or the floor smells good.

I call this judgment. Logical reasoning or intricate value judgments are sophistications of this process.

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

Inevitably, we unconsciously interact with our environment and we try to translate our unconscious impressions into intelligible notions. Because all things are either consciously known by us, or are unconscious, I do not see the error in saying that perception and judgment outline human psychology in a very general sense.

I don't have a problem with that. But, there are more general, or more specific (depending on how you want to look at it), ways of outlining human psychology that are better at explaining human behavior, which is, after all, the original question.

Lets stick with your framework. I start by perceiving. Everyone perceives the same reality, so that's not going to be a great way to get to know people, at least on a semi-individual basis.

I next digest that perception. I label it, I evaluate it, I sort it, I group it together with other perceptions (intuition). How do I go about doing that? Or rather, why do I do it at all? The answer to that question has to do with biology, evolutionary psychology, and psychoanalysis. If you want to find out how a person organizes their perceptions and judgments (as you called them) you have to know what kind of hierarchy of values and needs they're working with. If, for instance, I have a fear of abandonment, then I may misinterpret some sign from a lover as a threat. But if you don't know that I have a fear of abandonment, you'll just say I'm irrational and dismiss me. You haven't gotten to know me at all. Our needs and fears guide and comprise our "judgments," then. Therefore, if your aim is understanding people, typology is a blunt tool.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I don't have a problem with that. But, there are more general, or more specific (depending on how you want to look at it), ways of outlining human psychology that are better at explaining human behavior, which is, after all, the original question.

Lets stick with your framework. I start by perceiving. Everyone perceives the same reality, so that's not going to be a great way to get to know people, at least on a semi-individual basis.

I next digest that perception. I label it, I evaluate it, I sort it, I group it together with other perceptions (intuition). How do I go about doing that? Or rather, why do I do it at all? The answer to that question has to do with biology, evolutionary psychology, and psychoanalysis. If you want to find out how a person organizes their perceptions and judgments (as you called them) you have to know what kind of hierarchy of values and needs they're working with. If, for instance, I have a fear of abandonment, then I may misinterpret some sign from a lover as a threat. But if you don't know that I have a fear of abandonment, you'll just say I'm irrational and dismiss me. You haven't gotten to know me at all. Our needs and fears guide and comprise our "judgments," then. Therefore, if your aim is understanding people, typology is a blunt tool.

Typology only gives one a very general perspective regarding human nature and human behavior, if one wishes to get a more clear and deeper understanding inquiry into other fields (many of which you mentioned) is necessary. An important point to note is, typology is not antithetical to those disciplines.

All in all, it seems like we are on the same page.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Typology only gives one a very general perspective regarding human nature and human behavior, if one wishes to get a more clear and deeper understanding inquiry into other fields (many of which you mentioned) is necessary. An important point to note is, typology is not antithetical to those disciplines.

All in all, it seems like we are on the same page.

I think I'd agree.

 

[Qre:us]

Lets try this.

1.We are always interacting with our environment. I call this perception.

How do we do this? If I go to another room my mind will inevitably perceive what is there. I cannot stop myself from noticing the walls, the windows and the floor.

Before perception is sensation, and sensation will filter what we perceive (or don't)

2. We inevitably translate our perceptions into conscious judgments. We would be tempted to say, this wall is red, or the floor smells good.

Actually, this *is* the definition of perception, dunno what exactly you mean by ...'perception into conscious judgment' [this would reduce the definition of perception into nothingness].

Just clarifying, since:

Its important to get through the word game if you want to discuss the more important topics, as only through words can we adequately discuss bigger ideas.

 

[Qre:us]

I do not understand your question.

Obviously an inquiry into philosophy of mind starts with something that could be observed. The observations are made of patterns of thought, or of the mind in a general sense, and not of concrete behavior.

I am not questioning, at least in that specific instance, what philosophy of mind does or doesn't do. I am bringing up a criticism of typology that seems apparent to me.

Or, as another member named it (Jack-B-nimble): confirmation bias.


The rule:

All dogs bark.

An example:

Muttzist is a dog.
Muttzist barks.

An exception [psst, barely]:

Qre:us: *woof, woof*

Beyond what's the word around the pound, how do you validate Muttzist as a dog and not me?