Stereotypes are natural crutches for people, and they make for good comedy. Every heard of Axis Powers: Hetalia? How can making fun of people's ignorance be wrong? If it was, then we couldn't make fun of people, or have fun... much less correct ignorance...
And to be honest, I thought you were replying to a thread, Mole. Usually you don't start your own. But alright. Here's me, taking the bait like always. Or'er up ~
Stereotypes are natural crutches for people, and they make for good comedy. Ever heard of Axis Powers: Hetalia? How can making fun of people's ignorance be wrong? If it was, then we couldn't make fun of people, or have fun... much less correct ignorance...
And to be honest, I thought you were replying to a thread, Mole. Usually you don't start your own. But alright. Here's me, taking the bait like always. Or'er up ~
We all know stereotyping is morally wrong, yet none of us know mbti typing is morally wrong.
Why is that?
Stereotypes have been created out of MBTI though. A shit ton, which are very often misleading.
I love sterotypes as they allow us to form understanding of things. Stereotypes while should be subject to analysis form the outer layer of a thing or concept and are typically based on truth to some extent. For instance you cannot deny that the 100m sprint is dominated by those of African descent and swimming by those of European descent.
We all know stereotyping is morally wrong, yet none of us know mbti typing is morally wrong.
Why is that?
And here you are: hooked - line and sinker.
Stereotypes and mbti types are both immoral because they reify. They turn persons into things. And we turn persons into things when we want to control them or worse.
And it is also a matter of taste. Persons are not things, and it leaves a bad taste when a person is reified.
Good taste is recognising a person as a person, just like ourselves. And surprisingly, good taste and morality go hand in hand.
A stereotype is an oversimplified image or idea. A cliche.
For example:
--Women are nurturing and sweet, and men are brutal and angry.
--Cities are industrial wastelands.
--Women in detective novels are all femmes fatales
The opposite of a stereotype is categorizing or organizing by characteristics.
For example:
--Categorizing dogs or horses by breed and describing each breed in terms of appearance and temperament.
--Categorizing cities by size/population and describing them in terms of the kinds of employment opportunities they offer.
--Categorizing women by age and economic status in order to figure out what kinds of support services they will need from local government.
Soft sciences like psychology are soft; they aren't as driven by hard data as some of the other examples I mentioned. But they certainly aspire to belong to the categorizing/organizing group rather than the stereotyping group.
For example, people with mental illnesses or personality disorders can be categorized in terms of certain psychological traits, outlooks, and behaviors. Same with personality typing in a healthy population: Healthy people can be categorized in terms of the interplay of a few particular cognitive functions (MBTI) or personality dimensions (the Five Factor Model/Big Five), and so on.
The OP is just trying to create a false correspondence based on making the names sound alike (stereotyping vs. "MBTI typing"). But typology isn't a form of stereotyping.
Wow, are we actually having a discussion about the functions vs morality of stereotypes instead of just SJW shouting it down as evil?
I can't believe how far we've come in just a few years. It's beautiful.
The short answer is that stereotyping is not actually morally wrong. Thoughts are not crimes against morality, that requires action.
The category is dead.
Don't believe me?
Go into any library and only a short time ago the card catalogue was the first and most important part of the library, but today there is no library, none at all, that have a card catalogue in pride of place right at the front of the library. In fact there is no card catalogue anywhere in the library. Yes, the catalogue is dead, dead, dead - dead and buried.
And cataloguing anything is now finished, except for the backward looking such as mbti.
So why at MBTI Central, disguised as Typology Central, do we drive forward looking in the rear vision mirror? What are we hiding?
I grant that MBTI is a luxury. It's not medicine for the ill. It falls under a category called Positive Psychology. It's a way for healthy people to optimize their lives and feel even healthier yet. As such, it's a bit frivolous. Pop psychology for college kids. And it's hard to quantify or even prove its efficacy.
So I'm not going to put in a big effort defending MBTI. I was mainly just objecting to the false correspondence stated in the OP. But as for the rest of it: I enjoy your posts, Molio. So I'm not looking for an argument.
So we start in bad faith with our name, so no wonder humiliation is our normal form of social control.
Reference to my use of Molio? Sorry, I like your posts but I'm unable to take you seriously. You're a caricature. Drop the attitude if you want to be taken seriously.