Legitimacy of Typology [Discussion split from a personal thread]

[Cognisant]

*stuka's the railway tracks ahead*

I wish to challenge the legitimacy of typology outright since I've come to believe various factors make people's behavioural tendencies more complex than any typology system could possibly account for.

First and foremost is the affect of self perception, people's perception of the sort of person they are (including things like their Myer Briggs type if they know of such things) drastically affects their behaviour, for example choosing to believe that one is a INTP will prompt one to act in accordance to that belief, projecting the superficial appearance of that type, even though independent assessment might type them as something else entirely.

Which brings into question the validity of having types at all, I mean just because someone is judged to be a certain type based upon past behaviour doesn't give any definite indication of how they will act in the future, for example I may well be a extrovert during the day, an introvert in the evening, and rapidly switching between intuition and sensing as my current task changes, indeed in the space of an hour one person could display indications of being any one of all sixteen types, so would that mean they're being all of them at once?

It's an absurd question, instead I think the concept of identity is flawed, I challenge the assertion that there is any sort of concrete abstract self as we are not dualistic, the mind and body are inseparable, without a mind the body does not function and without a body the mind has no reason or means to exist,

So as I see it we are only bound by our psychological identities insofar as we believe ourselves to be and that if one truly realises this they may become something of a changeling, free to adapt and approach life in a more dynamic way. We are so incredibly self aware it's baffling why we don't use it, for example if you know you're procrastinating why do you accept it, do you not believe yourself capable of overcoming it, how could you possibly not be, it is YOUR mind after all... or is it simply that you don't want to?

Instead of "I am" perhaps we should say "This is".

 

[Cognisant]

Re: Video Stuff

Because Identity is imposed upon us by others.

In of ourselves we have no identity, we simply are.

 

[Auburn]

Re: Video Stuff

Oh boy,

It's the "typology is crap" bandwaggon coming back around again..

How precise does one have to be to be correct?

How informed ought one to be on a topic before giving an opinion?

What point is there in digging deep into a matter if both parties are not

truly invested in discovering the truth, but merely enjoying the process

of hearing themselves talk?



You know that argument Christians use?

"If we had evolved from monkeys, there would be no moneys."?

How do you even begin to dispute with a person like that?



If those Christians really even cared about truth, they would do their

research and not be using such absurd arguments which reveal

that they've never even read a single page from an actual book

on evolution and its basic principles.



Not all Christians are this pathetic, and some do present arguments

which I can respectfully agree to disagree on. But that one is just

so ludicrous.



And I don't see much difference between those Christians and what

you are doing here, Coggy. Your objections aren't even objections,

they're misconceptions.



Let me know when you really want to argue typology seriously,

and I'll be more than happy to duke it out with you.

 

[Cognisant]

Re: Video Stuff

*dignified applause*

I'll be back, but you're quite right I don't know enough about typology to debunk it.

Although to use your Christianity analogy I'm not arguing that due to Jewish law Jesus would have had to have been married in order to be a rabbi, which he was mentioned as being several times, rather my point is that I think god is your imaginary friend and see no worthwhile reason to believe otherwise.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Re: Video Stuff

a better question might be.......

What possible and specific evolutionary purpose does typology serve.
How and why would typology evolve?

Typology, in my opinion, is just a byproduct of the human compulsion to project delusional patterns and categorize them. Naturally I believe the science supports my perspective.

How is the theory different from any other house of cards; complexity being irrelevant.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Re: Video Stuff

and on a secondary note....

Hiding behind cog's ignorance?
Really?
Conceptually, typology and astrology are identical.

It's a wildly complex and precise system that confers a cathartic sense of identity and kinship. Scientific support matters not in the face of such beloved subjectively gratifying systems.

Seriously, ask a devotee about their star chart.
You'll be just as bored as when reading a long post about the mechanics of whatever brand of typology; jung, meyer-briggs , podlair, whatever you're calling yours. A suspiciously similar amount of bored in fact....


*prepares to be called closed minded*

 

[Words]

Re: Video Stuff

I prefer to argue via proofs, but cognitive functions are more... "observed," so there's really no other way to "prove" it except through your own experience. To start off, I recommend observing your own "mode" of cognition[stressing on the difference between how you think and how someone else thinks]. If you can't find harmony between your cognition or "way of thinking" with the function system, then perhaps you need to re-adjust your understanding of cognitive functions. This isn't necessarily theory over evidence. In fact, it's the opposite. Allow the data to change your understanding. Descriptions of functions, from all sources, fail because they over-extend themselves into the realm of probability. Cognitive functions are just specific [and exact] mental processes. Course, this depends on one primary assumption---that there's a pattern, regardless of its form, in relation to how we think. If you still can't see it, then perhaps it really doesn't exist.

I think it's pretty obvious though, mainly because of all the improbabilities i've observed. I don't know how to argue via data though. It just sounds like appeal to authority to me.

Typology, in my opinion, is just a byproduct of the human compulsion to project delusional patterns and categorize them. Naturally I believe the science supports my perspective.

Your lack of demonstration regarding an understanding of the supposed assertion and lack of the supposed "science" or counter-evidence against said assertion only highlights your faulty reasoning. That is, inexistence is a claim itself.

 

[Auburn]

Re: Video Stuff

Hi Adaire. ^^
I addressed Cog as I did because I know being called out sparks some motivation in him. Rather than make yet another long post for him just to have it casually dismissed again. It's not to say I'm hiding behind his ignorance.

Um.. I do realize that this is a very subjective area of inquiry. I'm not oblivious to the fact that 'scientific evidence' is lacking. But what I believe is that not all that is true is in the books. Nor should one limit their scope of study to that which is deemed objective.

If we completely shied away from areas of study just because we have incomplete instruments of measurement that meet the criteria of our modern philosophy of deduction, our eyesight would be tremendously limited.

Always, we have relied on the best instruments we have available to our era, and even the ones we currently rely on are only the best we have - but never absolute either. It is important to keep always in mind that each of our tools of perception is subjective - and even the most universally accepted observational truths can be taken on a solipsistic rollercoaster.

The senses we use to observe what we do in the science lab are the same senses we use for everything else in life; and all the observations we have are equally valid or invalid. The observations from which I base my claims are real in this same manner.


I don't think the fault in my belief is in my reasoning (though i'm open to the possibility), but in a subjectivity that is difficult to translate into knowledge for others to appreciate. Nonetheless it is still founded upon real, experiential data. Data which, were I able to translate to you, I believe you'd reason similarly from..

Now I can describe to you what I see, and ask you to examine your surroundings and see whether the same things exist for you. If you're unable to see them then perhaps it is because I am delusional, or perhaps the issue lies in lack of clarity in sight. Either is possible...

But please don't dismiss it just because of the notions you have attached to it. Also, the fact that Isabel Myers Brigg's work has been transformed into a pop-culture ego-boosting psychological too, is entirely irrelevant to the validity or invalidity of Jung's work, or all this in general.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Re: Video Stuff

'Just give it a chance' doesn't work on me.
My family tells me the same thing whenever they can in regard to Jesus Christ.
.....and I remember how thoroughly I believed.
Still terrifies me.

Not going to risk that again. Ever.

What happens Auburn, if the science turns out not to be in your favor, beyond a shadow of a doubt?
Would you be able to view your observations for what they were?

Your lack of demonstration regarding an understanding of the supposed assertion and lack of the supposed "science" or counter-evidence against said assertion only highlights your faulty reasoning. That is, inexistence is a claim itself.

I didn't provide it, because I think it's obvious.
Sure I could chase down some studies for you, quite easily in fact.
Although I'm frankly dumbfounded how you have not encountered these before.

I also trust my readers to find out for themselves.
Go looking for your evidence words.
You'll find it, unless you're a twit.

edit:
ack.
Auburn changed his post....

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Re: Video Stuff

The senses we use to observe what we do in the science lab are the same senses we use for everything else in life; and all the observations we have are equally valid or invalid. The observations from which I base my claims are real in this same manner.

no.....
This is completely wrong.

hmmm
I'm certain there's a relevant chart somewhere.....

Spoiler

But please don't dismiss it just because of the notions you have attached to it. Also, the fact that Isabel Myers Brigg's work has been transformed into a pop-culture ego-boosting psychological too, is entirely irrelevant to the validity or invalidity of Jung's work, or all this in general.

I was not attacking it on the grounds of being 'pop culture.'

 

[Auburn]

Re: Video Stuff

Though I don't disagree with that chart,
Whatever we may be able to perceive about what exists outside of our "small" range of senses, is still done through those senses! xP

Er, so we would still need to first rely on the validity of that crappy sample of senses we have, to give us insight into those we don't. But this is going off-topic.


If you don't wanna give this a fair chance, then fine...
But at least admit you don't know or haven't delved deep enough to say.
Rather than say it is definitely false because it reminds you of astrology.

 

[ElvenVeil]

Re: Video Stuff

I find it very reasonable that some people (and they are perhaps actually not in that short amount even here), claim that MBTI or the idea of functions gives an incorrect view of what it is to be human.. The reason I also find very simple; It comes down to what you believe MBTI and functions to be all about.

If you want MBTI to give a full perfect picture of a person, then obviously you are going to find MBTI flawed. We have 16 catagories and if you perhaps have the idea that MBTI must encompass every quality of the human mind, then obviously throwing people into 16 boxes is vastly wrong. There is a reason behind 16 types (a very small number) and that is to strike a line between what we believe to actually be there and how precise we wish to be.

If you have a 6 billion types, then it should be obvious that a type indicator is worth zero, as it basically would just tell you that you are you.. And that is not what we wish to hear. We wish to hear how we are similar and different from other people, and that is what MBTI offers. MBTI offers some theoretical labels which we can use to understand the world around us, and so MBTI is not a dictionary that gives you the 100% correct terms, but glasses that you can put on and see the world in a perhaps better perspective.

It follows from here, that in my opinion, the best way of regarding MBTI is through personal information gathering, of how you see functions in the real world, as you have been given some labels to look for (the functions).

So how precise is MBTI? To me, the four basic principles that MBTI works with, the idea that we have Feeling, Sensing, intuition and thinking sides of ourselves, and that these 4 sides are less or more dominant in oneself, seems very intuitive. I fancy the idea and it has helped me refine how I regard humans around me. You must accept MBTI as a tool, not a fact.

MBTI has however been investigated a bit further by Neuro scientist Dario Nardi, and obviously we will see that our brains are very complex and won't just fit into 16 catagory without any problems. However, his results showed that there actually were a corelation between how the brain worked, and what types they were, and so we actually have some more scientific basis, aside from personal observations, to tell us, that perhaps we are actually onto something.

I believe MBTI to be a very useful tool that can be applied to understand the everyday life around us better

From a scientific point of view, the best way forward is to strike a line between what we can observe of person and what we can see goes on in the brain.

From a personal point of view, a good way forward is to observe the world around you, how well can you use this idea of functions? Perhaps you agree with the idea of some functions, whereas the description of other functions you simple don't believe to be correct.. Well then you must simply correct it in your mind, perhaps share your observations with your peers - That is one way to improve our understanding of humans.

 

[Mello]

Re: Video Stuff

If you fellows want to debate the validity of personality types at least do it using personal videos.

Spoiler

Or get the fuck out of my thread.

 

[Cognisant]

Re: Video Stuff

Recently I've been meditating upon it means to be in a state without ego, what I perceive the be the Buddhist version of enlightenment (maybe more Zen, meh, semantics) and I've come to the conclusion that the abstract self is the source of the ego.

So if one were sufficiently self aware as to no longer require the abstract self (which itself is a tool for developing self awareness, to a point) then one can exist in a selfless state, being consciously aware and yet not deluded by the bias of self perception. For example what I said earlier about procrastination, under the delusion of self you may perceive procrastination as a characteristic weakness, but when free of the delusion there is no separation of will and action, if you wish to procrastinate you do so, if you wish to do a task you do so, the moment you wish not to be procrastinating you are already doing so.

No struggle, it just happens, like what Morpheus says in the matrix:
"Stop trying to hit me and hit me"

Yoda says it too: "No try, Do!"

Anyway from my perspective the concept that the abstract self is in any way inherent is not only absurd (not unlike the concept of a soul) it's an impediment on the path to enlightenment(TM) as the true realization of self is both destructive and liberating because you realize you are not bound to who you believe yourself to be (thus your "character" is lost, your ego dies) and instead you are unbridled possibility.

How could MBTI or any system of typology possibly define that without perverting the very essence of what it means? XXXX just doesn't cover it.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Re: Video Stuff

Though I don't disagree with that chart,
Whatever we may be able to perceive about what exists outside of our "small" range of senses, is still done through those senses! xP

Er, so we would still need to first rely on the validity of that crappy sample of senses we have, to give us insight into those we don't. But this is going off-topic.


If you don't wanna give this a fair chance, then fine...
But at least admit you don't know or haven't delved deep enough to say.
Rather than say it is definitely false because it reminds you of astrology.

Fine.

I don't know that astrology is wrong because I haven't delved deep enough into it.



Your senses Auburn, your perception of reality.

It is all a lie, a clever delusion to keep you sane.
The brain tries so hard.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Re: Video Stuff

Though I don't disagree with that chart,
Whatever we may be able to perceive about what exists outside of our "small" range of senses, is still done through those senses! xP

That's just the electromagnetic spectrum....
You've still missed my point.

and that's not mentioning all that blank space, is stuff that you undoubtedly miss. That not even getting the rat's nest of interpretation and confirmation bias.

It's also getting hard not to invoke Russel's Teapot with you...



There are also things you're more intelligent not knowing or at minimum not taking seriously...

Tis important to be discerning and avoid viral and indulgent thought patterns. It's bloody difficult to kill an idea once you've had it and given it credence. You inevitably put your ego and pride behind it. With as much effort as you've invested Auburn; I'm confident you would not be able to let go very easily. You're even compelled to spread the meme.

 

[kantor1003]

Re: Video Stuff

Cog: Would you say that the ego is the sum total of every conception we have about our Self? Obviously, "ego" and "self" are concepts in and of themselves as well.

Could you elaborate on the way you view the relationship between self-awareness and the abstract self? - and also, how a sufficiently self-aware person would be able to exist in a selfless state?
I think the mode of awareness is the key thing and not so much being "sufficiently" self-aware. Do you perhaps mean by being sufficiently self-aware that you focus on sense-data pretty much exclusively, rather than getting entangled in conceptualizing it? In any case, I wonder whether it would be possible to even function without categorizing and systematizing input. If one didn't, I think the world would seem very chaotic, even though it most likely would be a more accurate mode of perception.

 

[Words]

Re: Video Stuff

I didn't provide it, because I think it's obvious.

Obvious is relative.

Sure I could chase down some studies for you, quite easily in fact.
Although I'm frankly dumbfounded how you have not encountered these before.

I also trust my readers to find out for themselves.
Go looking for your evidence words.
You'll find it, unless you're a twit.

more bare assertions and ad hominems. Your position is valid, but man...discussion requires reason over conclusion. Appealing to human inadequacies is not enough.

Granted, the burden of evidence is with pro-existence, but I don't really know how to argue evidence-wise, so my position is just agnosticism.

Anyway from my perspective the concept that the abstract self is in any way inherent is not only absurd (not unlike the concept of a soul) it's an impediment on the path to enlightenment(TM) as the true realization of self is both destructive and liberating because you realize you are not bound to who you believe yourself to be (thus your "character" is lost, your ego dies) and instead you are unbridled possibility.

How could MBTI or any system of typology possibly define that without perverting the very essence of what it means? XXXX just doesn't cover it.

Existentialism? "temperament", which is what I think MBTI is hinting at, is simply one of the deterministic aspects of the "self." or would you deny that there are deterministic aspects to the self? I see the "self" as being multifactorial. Most of these factors are deterministic(nature,culture,environment) but one of it is "existenz." So you have both chaos and cosmos.

 

[Cognisant]

Do you perhaps mean by being sufficiently self-aware that you focus on sense-data pretty much exclusively, rather than getting entangled in conceptualizing it?

It could also be intuitive as well.

Y'know when thinking "aloud" in our heads we're formulating words and sentences to follow our train of thought, but these sentences are never spoken so do we really need them? In meditation you avoid the abstraction of the inner voice and allow your mind to just do what it does, which is much faster; it's like the difference between software that's showing you what it's doing as it does it and software that just does it, obviously the latter is faster.

I think this applies to self awareness as well, by foregoing abstract self awareness (the concept of self) and instead just experiencing existence you can act without that separation of will and action, so you won't be subject to the foibles of the ego and delusional double thinking like panicking because you realize you're afraid, thinking to yourself "I'm scared" which makes you even more afraid.

Existentialism? "temperament", which is what I think MBTI is hinting at, is simply one of the deterministic aspects of the "self." or would you deny that there are deterministic aspects to the self?

The conceptual/abstract self is a construct within the mind, so it may be deterministic but I wouldn't say it's empirical, not unless we're talking about a moment-by-moment basis, I mean you can certainly fit people into the classifications of typology, y'know for example someone is clearly more INTP than ENFJ, but you can't say someone is an INTJ therefore they will react to this situation in some specific way, there's simply too many other relevant variables involved.

Like weather, sure you can say it's sunny or raining, but it's never just sunny, or just raining, or just windy, and the weather is constantly in flux, sure the Australian outback doesn't get much rain but you can't say it never rains, certainly not after the recent floods.

 

[scorpiomover]

It's just a tool, chiefly to help you understand how others communicate, so that you can make yourself clearly understood to others, and you can understand what others are prattling on about, and is not just complete nonsense. It doesn't even have to be that good of a tool, to be useful.

We are only defined by how we choose to define ourselves.

You know that argument Christians use?

"If we had evolved from monkeys, there would be no moneys."?

"there would be no monkeys."

How do you even begin to dispute with a person like that?

By using your intelligence, and realising that just because you happen to think that Marmite is disgusting, or that Thatcher was the best thing for the UK, or that you don't believe in their views of religion, doesn't change 99% of the concept neurons in the brain, or the basic physiology and functioning of the neurons and axons in the brain. Either they are intelligent, in which case, we expect to see that they are intelligent all over the place, or they are stupid, in which case we expect to see them being stupid all over the place, in which case, they would be so stupid over dangerous things like driving, that insurance companies would TRIPLE premiums, just on the basis of being a Xian.

If those Christians really even cared about truth, they would do their

research and not be using such absurd arguments which reveal

that they've never even read a single page from an actual book

on evolution and its basic principles.

It might help to understand that according to evolutionary theory, they are right. If 2 species exist, and one is tiny in number, being a rare mutation of the other, then the tiny one would only increase in size if they have an advantage over the other, and as long as that advantage exists, they would become more numerous, while the other would become less numerous. Eventually, the less numerous one would become so small in number, that they would die out. Basic understanding of why Darwin pointed out why 99% of species went extinct.

Of course, you can counter by saying that the process CAN take longer, or there are other factors. But the essential argument of evolution holds. To counter, you'd have to present the mathematical calculations, to show exactly why monkeys haven't gone extinct yet. And you haven't done that, because mathematics is either definitely right, or not, and so if you had done that, and done so competently, no-one would even claim counter to your viewpoint.

This is no different. Put up, or shut up. Either prove it beyond any possible doubt, with INTP-solid logic, and then everyone will be forced to agree with you, or you're just pissed that he pointed out a hole in your so-beloved theory, which is that so far, no-one has admitted putting it to any serious scientific tests, and finding it works. Either they didn't do the test, or it proved MBTI false, or they are keeping mum.

 

[DetachedRetina]

Re: Video Stuff

Because Identity is imposed upon us by others.

In of ourselves we have no identity, we simply are.

Let's talk about this please.

 

[DetachedRetina]

Is that like... If a tree falls in the woods?

I know you talked a bit about meditation and snuffing out your inner voice, but isn't that a bit different than "Without others we have no identity?"

 

[Jennywocky]

Re: Video Stuff

@ElvenVeil: A lot of your post describes how I view MBTI.

The reality is that it's been immensely helpful to me in the past, when I was trying to find my place in the world, figure out how to interact with others, develop angles by which to understand people.

But really, they're just broad categories and broad concepts. it's not like physics, where you plug in numbers and come up with very specific and accurate results. It's fuzzy logic and generalization. Some people know how to process and work with fuzzy logic, others expect too much of it and wander into error by misapplication.

So the reality is somewhere in the middle, at least as far as I have experienced it. I wouldn't call it a science, but I do consider it a useful framework that was extremely helpful to me and has been utilized positively by me to help me direct my life as well as relate to others better. But then again, I think in patterns; and really, all it is offering is broad patterns of motivation and behavior. The details can vary.

Let's talk about this please.

Do we even need an identity when we are not around others -- such as when we are alone walking in the woods, for example? -- or is identity only something that develops when we need to distinguish ourselves from others or justify ourselves to them? Even if we have a distinction of self from our surroundings, I find that we're much more prone to simply "be" and integrate into the natural world when we do not have other humans around.

 

[Architect]

Re: Video Stuff

@ElvenVeil: A lot of your post describes how I view MBTI.

...

But really, they're just broad categories and broad concepts. it's not like physics, where you plug in numbers and come up with very specific and accurate results. It's fuzzy logic and generalization.

I would disagrees, since studying myself and my INTP son (both as personal learning and in an effort to help guide him) I've found that precise conclusions can be drawn using MBTI.

For example, take computing. INTP's love computers - even the ones that claim not to are on these forums using computers. My son took to them like a duck to water - as did I. His cousin, a raging ESFP, likes them 'well enough', but more because they allow him to check up on college basketball scores. Hm, an ESFP who loves sports, and an INTP who hates them. This is amazing - a psychological type theory can be used to predict a persons interesting in very specific activities. My kid likes solo sports well enough, like fencing, but hates team sports. That's not a generalization.

Of course not all INTP's love computing as do many of them, and same for team sports. That just means that there is a distribution - having a distribution does not mean it's imprecise. I have no doubt I could run some machine learning algorithms on the distribution of INTP interests (if I had the data) and find a very predictive, and precise model.

I find this demonstration amazing and illustrative. We have something - hardcoded personality programming in our genetic makeup as far as I can determine - that can be a predictor of behavior, given the free will and the personality we develop from our upbringing.

I've used this to my advantage also. I was never a visual person and it was the least developed of my abilities, but I kept reading how INTP's like photography. So I took it up, and frankly had a hard time of it, but I kept pushing. Pretty quickly it has become a wonderful and fascinating hobby, much more difficult than I had thought. I believe that, in this case, my personality is not a visual one, despite the MBTI hard coded interest, which still came out with a little encouragement.

 

[Jennywocky]

lol... you're criticizing me from the OTHER side? I was make a concession to someone who had criticized MBTI in terms of being what amounts to a science. Your comments are to me the "middle ground" where some things work. "INTPs + computers" tends to be one of those things, if you're going to go through hobbyist lists for each type.

In general, specific interests of INTPs aside, there's a lot of variability in type. Go on any forum, try to predict what a particular type will be like, and you will invariably get a few people saying, "But I'm not interested in that!" I've found type to be more flexible than less, the more that I talk to non-INTPs. But general ways the functions work and combine, general motivations, general weaknesses, all that tends to be pretty valid IMO.

 

[Architect]

Jenny,
I'm not criticizing you but just relaying my observations - and I didn't read the post you were replying to but just what I thought yours was saying. Instead it would have been better to have written a post that stood on its own.

 

[Peripheral Visionary]

Re: Video Stuff

For example, take computing. INTP's love computers - even the ones that claim not to are on these forums using computers. My son took to them like a duck to water - as did I. His cousin, a raging ESFP, likes them 'well enough', but more because they allow him to check up on college basketball scores. Hm, an ESFP who loves sports, and an INTP who hates them. This is amazing - a psychological type theory can be used to predict a persons interesting in very specific activities. My kid likes solo sports well enough, like fencing, but hates team sports. That's not a generalization.

Of course not all INTP's love computing as do many of them, and same for team sports. That just means that there is a distribution - having a distribution does not mean it's imprecise. I have no doubt I could run some machine learning algorithms on the distribution of INTP interests (if I had the data) and find a very predictive, and precise model.

I find this demonstration amazing and illustrative. We have something - hardcoded personality programming in our genetic makeup as far as I can determine - that can be a predictor of behavior, given the free will and the personality we develop from our upbringing.

I've used this to my advantage also. I was never a visual person and it was the least developed of my abilities, but I kept reading how INTP's like photography. So I took it up, and frankly had a hard time of it, but I kept pushing. Pretty quickly it has become a wonderful and fascinating hobby, much more difficult than I had thought. I believe that, in this case, my personality is not a visual one, despite the MBTI hard coded interest, which still came out with a little encouragement.

I think you are confusing the line between predicting BEHAVIOR and predicting INCLINATIONS.

As an INTP, one MIGHT be more inclined to be interested in computers. But this isn't because there is an intrinsic attraction between computers and INTPs. Fooling around with computers is a good "alone" activity that offers challenging problems to solve and provides great rewards after you master it. To an INTP child, I'd give him a computer and hope for the best, but not be surprised if he chose to rebuild muscle cars--which offers many of the same benefits.

If you are familiar with the notion of preferred sensory experience, then you might realize some people process experience primarily through one of the three main senses (visual, auditory, kinesthetic). An INTP might take to photography if he/she is also visually dominant (most human beings are)because it meets a lot of the same criteria that computers offer. An auditory dominant tends to gravitate to music or languages. But I say TENDS because there is no assuredness. I am a visual dominant INTP who is an accomplished musician with no interest in photography and regards computers as a necessary evil.

I think Jenny's fuzzy logic conception is as good a description as I've seen on the value of MBTI. It is an outline, not a map; a forecast, not a prediction.

 

[Architect]

Re: Video Stuff

I think you are confusing the line between predicting BEHAVIOR and predicting INCLINATIONS.

I'd say you're splitting hairs. All I know is behavior - I have no way of measuring inclinations, depending on the precise meaning of that word that you are using. In the real world all we can reliably measure is behavior, and I still stand by the statement that in my experience, MBTI can make statistically precise statements about a person based on their observed type.

This should be obvious to anybody who studies MBTI and has had kids. My kid, and the cousin I mentioned, demonstrated their type while in the womb. The ESFP was a party animal before he was born, I was talking to my sister in law and suddenly he started doing some kind of dance routine. My kid - never a peep. We found out later he slept during the day, and if he moved at all, did it at night. Totally quiet and contained. Likewise as soon as they were born the behaviors were apparent. Easy to see in the ESFP, the INTP was harder to notice, other than a insistence on continually being given new information and things to learn (and a less interest in people for their own sake).

My suspicion is that this is all encoded in the genes, but not the static instructions but the dynamic. For example, the beak length of Darwins Finches (we know now) is not encoded in the genes (they all have the same beak encoding), but in the gene expression part, which simply specify how long a certain hormone is present during gestation. If it's there for an hour you get a short beak Finch, if it's there for longer you get a long beaked Finch.

Likewise I suspect we will eventually trace MBTI to how certain hormones are used in the body according to genetic expression, which is why extraverted sensors are more outgoing and outwardly energetic then the INTP. If you want to call that inclinations that's fine by me.

 

[Reluctantly]

The thing about typology is that it really is completely intuitive. What I mean is that to know what a type is, you also have to know what it isn't in 15 other ways; but to know that you also have to know what the other 15 types are.

So really a person first needs a lot of experiences to even begin to discern distinctions in personality. But even more importantly, when this is done without judgment, an understanding can be accurately formed, but that means that trying to explain it or reason it makes it into an incorrect and cheap version of stereotypes and generalizations. Rationalizing typology makes it flawed; but not being able to rationalize it, makes it unprovable. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist...heh.

Honestly, if a person is honest about their experiences and is always willing to re-evaluate them with an open mind, it'll all come together on an intuitive level. But that doesn't necessarily mean you'll find much meaning in type itself, but rather in the dynamics of relating to other people...which is what type is supposed to be about, right? When all the bullshit and assumptions and identity holding is taken aside...

 

[Peripheral Visionary]

The thing about typology is that it really is completely intuitive.

I agree. And the hard empiricists have a hard time with it, because you can't put an INCLINATION in a mason jar and observe what it does.

MBTI is a valuable framework, but because of its fuzzy logic nature, it is succeptable to the "Astrology Column" effect. This is where you read your column and automatically look for ways it fits you, or your kids.

 

[ElvenVeil]

MBTI is a valuable framework, but because of its fuzzy logic nature, it is succeptable to the "Astrology Column" effect. This is where you read your column and automatically look for ways it fits you, or your kids.

Yes and no.. I agree that one reason why MBTI serves as a frame work is due to its 'fuzzy logic' or lack of direct empirical evidence. However it is far from Astrology, as MBTI and Astrology rests on two completely different approaches. Astrology seeks to be so broad that they can fit everyone, and astrological readings can be vastly different; It doesn't matter, because the goal is simply to predict something that everyone can fit into their own world in some manner.
MBTI does not go about predicting, or telling you what to do. MBTI is not about the profile descriptions but about functions and functions do not share the ambiguous nature of astrology. Functions move in pretty clear directions, although not ironclad definitions, hence MBTI as a tool or a framework and thus MBTI as 'fuzzy logic'.

 

[Peripheral Visionary]

MBTI is not about the profile descriptions but about functions and functions do not share the ambiguous nature of astrology.

I certainly didn't mean to compare MBTI to astrology. But are you saying that the Forer Effect can't happen to someone reading a type description?

 

[ElvenVeil]

Well no I just said that I didn't believe MBTI to be about the type description. Naturally the Forer Effect may occur(would be foolish to claim that no one could possibly shape a view of themselves through the type description), but it is not build into MBTI.. And I would say that it is even less likely when you begin to know about functions. Having said that, I think that there are actually many good type descriptions around.

 

[bourbon bait]

I certainly didn't mean to compare MBTI to astrology. But are you saying that the Forer Effect can't happen to someone reading a type description?

It is interesting that you mentioned astrology. My interest in MBTI blossomed as a response to the fact that astrology has been so terribly off-the-ball for me. I have never taken astrology too seriously, but I am astounded at how many of my friends swear by it. Worst of all is that I find that I can never really escape the astrology inquiry as it tends to come up eventually among people I meet. So, I introduce them to the MBTI whenever they ask for my sign, though I won't be a stick up their ass by discrediting astrology (which is what I used to do, and let me tell you, it made for defensive rebuttals and awkward silences).

I have come to realize over the years that astrology is a big deal culturally, so I play along by giving them what I consider as my real sign (as opposed to the sign my birthday falls under). People use this stuff to get to know one another better, and really, one should be flattered that someone is taking the interest.

But getting back to the MBTI, I think that even official sources state that the test isn't 100% accurate (a sourced Wikipedia entry I read states that the official manual considers the test to be approximately 75% accurate). There are also issues of reliability, although for me personally, the tests have always categorized me as an INTP after multiple attempts over the course of a few years. I think the most important point here is that the MBTI is an inventory for preferences, not aptitudes.

Of course, there will always be the risk of a self-fulfilling prophesy, but this danger is inherent in any personality inventory. I am sure that the risk can be greatly minimized if the inventory is prefaced with a "disclaimer"-of-sorts stating that one's personality type can be fluid over the course of a lifetime, so that there will be no need for one to feel that one needs to "conform" to their assigned profile (which, of course, is totally not the case for astrology).

On another note, I find the Keirsey and the Big Five to be pretty accurate, too.

 

[Seally]

My current understanding of MBTI is that the cognitive functions are simply a classification of the cognitive processes inside our heads. It only classifies how a person will process information, and divide this into 16 categories. All other related information must be extrapolated from this.

In other words, the cognitive functions are (rather ambiguous and subjective) explanations of how people arrive to their conclusions and perceptions, the 'mental patterns' they use, rather than their actual personality.

I have absolutely no idea how legitimate the theory is though, but if it doesn't give you any better understanding I suggest you look elsewhere.