The harmful side of psychological theories, including personality theories and IQ

[Cellmold]

I have identified as INTP for the past 10yrs. Theories of type are deeply ingrained in my consciousness. It will take a while to purge myself of them completely.

I suppose I could see that, myself I was never that deeply into it in the first place, I enjoy it, it's a nice hobby and at some point I genuinely wanted to understand myself through a methodology somehow, but oddly enough it does not cloud my thoughts day in day out, I dont find myself obsessing over type or function.

My asking for people to type me and discussions of that sort over vent are more entertainment than anything else. I was always happy to be anything, as long as it made sense and I could still be myself.

No, they are objectively wrong.

No it is objectively blank, there is no objectivity in this theory that's one of it's main problems, because the only objectivity is collective agreement on definitions.

I don't think it makes people more considerate / understanding of each other. In fact, the reverse is true.

How so? People who were going to divide themselves into 'us and them' or "I and them" were always going to do so, regardless of whether they do this through a theory or through some other method. The inconsiderate nature of some people is a fault of those people, not the theory, does the theory tell people to think in terms of 'oh im an INTJ that's why I didn't get along with that 'ESFP'?

Apart from Keirsey, who really doesn't deal in Jung or MBTI, ive not read many works which justify such behaviour. In fact centralised forums such as INTPc are exactly the fault of those who dont wish to grow through conflict and consideration, instead they use their group assumptions and affirmations to pat one another on the back and further their own delusions.

So essentially they hide from improvement and risk, while trying to assure one another that this is ok. Where does the theory come into this then?

It is the catalyst definitely, but not the cause.

 

[Salomé]

I suppose I could see that, myself I was never that deeply into it in the first place, I enjoy it, it's a nice hobby and at some point I genuinely wanted to understand myself through a methodology somehow, but oddly enough it does not cloud my thoughts day in day out, I dont find myself obsessing over type or function.

Obsessing, no. But it is impossible for someone like me to enter into anything on a merely superficial level. I thought I had found an explanation for things which had puzzled me since childhood. I was wrong, and knew it almost from the start....but... it is a seductive philosophy.

No it is objectively blank, there is no objectivity in this theory that's one of it's main problems, because the only objectivity is collective agreement on definitions.

You are equivocating. Like any theory which makes predications it can be (and has been falsified).

How so? People who were going to divide themselves into 'us and them' or "I and them" were always going to do so, regardless of whether they do this through a theory or through some other method. The inconsiderate nature of some people is a fault of those people, not the theory, does the theory tell people to think in terms of 'oh im an INTJ that's why I didn't get along with that 'ESFP'?

Apart from Keirsey, who really doesn't deal in Jung or MBTI, ive not read many works which justify such behaviour. In fact centralised forums such as INTPc are exactly the fault of those who dont wish to grow through conflict and consideration, instead they use their group assumptions and affirmations to pat one another on the back and further their own delusions.

So essentially they hide from improvement and risk, while trying to assure one another that this is ok. Where does the theory come into this then?

It is the catalyst definitely, but not the cause.

Whether catalyst or cause, it does not help but hinder understanding and consideration. You have just provided the evidence yourself.

Whilst it is true that people seem hard-wired to look for "us vs them" distinctions, typology offers us artificial distinctions which pander to that toxic and destructive habit.

 

[Cellmold]

Obsessing, no. But it is impossible for someone like me to enter into anything on a merely superficial level. I thought I had found an explanation for things which had puzzled me since childhood. I was wrong, and knew it almost from the start....but... it is a seductive philosophy.

That's an individual issue then.

Whether catalyst or cause, it does not help but hinder understanding and consideration. You have just provided the evidence yourself.

Whilst it is true that people seem hard-wired to look for "us vs them" distinctions, typology offers us artificial distinctions which pander to that toxic and destructive habit.

I still find that to be very dismissive and somewhat unsatisfying on a rational level. Typology theories are a tool, you cannot blame a tool for how it is used, unless said tool was designed explicitly with only that destructive quality in and of itself.

This theory was clearly not, so why do you still only present such a one-sided perspective? The evidence of people using it negatively....is just evidence of people using it negatively.

'I think we should get rid of kitchen knives because people are inclined to violence and a murder was just committed with one' is not a sound argument. And if you believe that to be a strawman take a close look at your argument.

I dont disagree with picking apart the theory and pointing out it's flaws, in fact I would encourage it, but I think your methods and reasoning for doing so are a bit lacking in clear sense.

One aspect I can see a bit of sense in for the argument of these theories being self limiting; is that a person puts themselves into a box labelled a certain type and then disregards all other contrary aspects of any other type and uses this to reaffirm themselves, but this is still just the same issue as explained in my previous post.

Most people fall across this theory like a plastic bag in the breeze and they research it based upon internet assumptions and collective misconceptions thus furthering the issues you raise. But that's still a fault of the usage not a fault in the inherency of the theory.

Ive not done that much research myself, but I have read a great deal and I came into this theory with blank expectations and assumptions and I can honestly say that it did help further my understanding and consideration of others and myself.

Of course if you take that paragraph and point out that this is merely a personalised view of individual experience...kettle-black-pot...you know the saying.

All I will say is that this theory can be a trap for some people and for those it is best to get out quick before it closes. However those same people should not make the mistake of running straight into another trap, that of sticking around to disprove it so as to get people to 'see the light' so to speak.

I suppose an important test of this is: Do you see AA here or just ESFJ, if it is the latter...get out while you can!

 

[Salomé]

I still find that to be very dismissive and somewhat unsatisfying on a rational level. Typology theories are a tool, you cannot blame a tool for how it is used, unless said tool was designed explicitly with only that destructive quality in and of itself.

I'm not blaming a tool for how it's used. See my first post in this thread!
You keep seizing on irrelevant side-points and missing the main point.

I dont disagree with picking apart the theory and pointing out it's flaws, in fact I would encourage it, but I think your methods and reasoning for doing so are a bit lacking in clear sense.

This makes no sense whatsoever. Ironically.
You know neither my methods, nor reasoning. Reserve your Judgement.

 

[Cellmold]

I'm not blaming a tool for how it's used. See my first post in this thread!
You keep seizing on irrelevant side-points and missing the main point.
This makes no sense whatsoever. Ironically.

You mean this one?

Aka Individuation.

Pessimists will interpret data in pessimistic ways. Theories are benign.

Well if theories are benign then that goes along with what I was saying. If it is benign then it is not the fault of the theory for how people choose to interpret it, which seems a bit contradictory given that you said:

I don't think it makes people more considerate / understanding of each other. In fact, the reverse is true.

Which implies the theory is slanted towards that negative outcome, but then it wouldn't be benign.

You know neither my methods, nor reasoning. Reserve your Judgement.

Im only going off what you have given me, or rather what you have presented in this thread.

Well this little tete a tete aside, you should start coming to vent and enjoying some discussions that arent typology related.

Oh well I hope you do get the theory out of your brain, perceptions become that much brighter without it.

 

[UniqueMixture]

I agree that should be the goal, however show me where any typologist makes this explicit.

? I don't view typologists as ultimate authorities nor do I base my personal goals off of their theories Perhaps I should rephrase to make this clearer. My goal is to be a flexible person who is able to deal with many various and disparate scenarios in life and to continue to grow so that I may help to shape the reality around me in a positive/prosocial way.

 

[Salomé]

Well if theories are benign then that goes along with what I was saying. If it is benign then it is not the fault of the theory for how people choose to interpret it, which seems a bit contradictory given that you said: Which implies the theory is slanted towards that negative outcome, but then it wouldn't be benign.

FFS.
YOU said:

I still maintain that it could easily be an elaborate ruse by Isabel Myers-Briggs and her mother Katharine Mary-Briggs as a way of subtly inducing people to be more considerate to others and their approach to the world, rather than a true enlightenment on an individual's cognition.

I can't really think of a better method besides deliberate indoctrination and/or torture or simply by 'spreading the word' to achieve that outcome.

Then went on to point out the ways in which it had the opposite effect. (!?!?!)

Why don't you point out some examples of where it has "subtly induced people to be more considerate". I'm all ears.

In any event, it's irrelevant. It can be argued that belief in a Creator induces people to be both more considerate and more bloodthirsty. Has no bearing on whether or not the belief is sound.

Im only going off what you have given me, or rather what you have presented in this thread.

I haven't presented anything. I've made a statement. Not a very controversial one. I'm in no mood to start a new thread on the topic when all it will receive are unmoderated attacks from fuckwits. Besides which, people enjoy believing bullshit. And who am I to deprive them of their chosen opiate?

Well this little tete a tete aside, you should start coming to vent and enjoying some discussions that arent typology related.

I'd rather slash through my own vocal chords. But thx.

 

[Cellmold]

So it IS bitterness!

 

[Salomé]

? I don't view typologists as ultimate authorities nor do I base my personal goals off of their theories Perhaps I should rephrase to make this clearer. My goal is to be a flexible person who is able to deal with many various and disparate scenarios in life and to continue to grow so that I may help to shape the reality around me in a positive/prosocial way.

This thread is about mainstream theories of psychological type. Not your "personal goals". Sorry, assumed you could read.

 

[Cellmold]

FFS.
In any event, it's irrelevant. It can be argued that belief in a Creator induces people to be both more considerate and more bloodthirsty. Has no bearing on whether or not the belief is sound.

NOW you're thinking.

 

[Stanton Moore]

This thread is about mainstream theories of psychological type. Not your "personal goals". Sorry, assumed you could read.

You should tone down the ad hominem remarks. It seems that every second post of yours contains some vituperative, over-aggressive come back, about some subjective point or the meaning of a particular word. It doesn’t make you seem smarter or superior.

 

[Salomé]

So it IS bitterness!

Are you addressing me, or just making random, idiotic projections?

This is the second time I have tried to have an adult exchange with you and found you deliberately obtuse. I won't make another attempt. You have absolutely nothing to offer.

 

[Stanton Moore]

Are you addressing me, or just making random, idiotic projections?

This is the second time I have tried to have an adult exchange with you and found you deliberately obtuse. I won't make another attempt. You have absolutely nothing to offer.

Again...

 

[Salomé]

^Jesus. Who are you? Magic 2.0?
Make an on-topic post, or MYOFB. I still don't give a shit what you think. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

 

[Cellmold]

FFS.
YOU said:
Then went on to point out the ways in which it had the opposite effect. (!?!?!)

Well that was an idle idea, remember that the important word in that quote is the word 'could'. As in that 'could' have been their motive and method.

 

[Stanton Moore]

Make an on-topic post? The only topic you seem to be interested in (ultimately) is your own ego expression.
But don’t let me stop you from saving the world from idiocy and ignorance. By all means, continue on your path to certain banning.

 

[UniqueMixture]

This thread is about mainstream theories of psychological type. Not your "personal goals". Sorry, assumed you could read.

lol take your attitude elsewhere. It should be obvious that the validity of entity views of self will be modified by Neuroscience and biochemistry and which is what I was referencing in the post from which you quoted a small snippet derp. of course, your lack of ability to allow scrutiny from sources not referenced from within the original paradigm is probably what caused you to adhere so blindly to typology for so long in the first place see, I can take words and twist them to reinforce my own worldview as well! fun!

 

[Salomé]

lol take your attitude elsewhere. It should be obvious that the validity of entity views of self will be modified by Neuroscience and biochemistry and which is what I was referencing in the post from which you quoted a small snippet derp. of course, your lack of ability to allow scrutiny from sources not referenced from within the original paradigm is probably what caused you to adhere so blindly to typology for so long in the first place see, I can take words and twist them to reinforce my own worldview as well! fun!

Which would you like me to do, take my attitude elsewhere, or read the rest of your incoherent post?

I know more than I could ever desire to about your "twisted world view" already. So I'll do the former.

 

[Mal12345]

I can totally see this danger.

That's exactly why there's backlash. As someone who develops models of human behavior/cognition, I often get told that I can't do what I'm doing.. as if, over my career, I haven't thought of the fact that human behavior models have limitations in their explanatory power and domain of use..

"YOU CAN'T PREDICT PEOPLE!! THEY'RE COMPLEX!! *THROWS A CHAIR*"

I knew you were going to do that.

 

[pv255]

whoa. this is deep
i have many thoughts. ya'll keep talking, im gonna get out of the office and go somewhere more relaxing and prepare my thoughts.