MBTI is stupid

[nightstreaking]

...well, not quite, but I've run across a couple of INFPs* who think of it as something less than definitive. Cases in point: this blog post and this video (the entire channel, really).

The reactions are really delightful, somehow, because they're so true. Some people get really hung up on the MBTI (*waves hand* me! *darts into corner*), and it's refreshing to see a different take.

So yay! Bedtime post. Enjoy.

 

[Lyra]

She's a NeFi, not INFP. Her understanding of the cognitive configuration phenomenon is certainly less than definitive.

That said I do quite like her. She's just not a serious or relevant thinker at this point, given how little she understands the lay-of/frontrunners-in the field she's talking about. Her (IIRC) aversion to being 'typed' or told she's read herself wrong is one example of this.

W.r.t limitations, almost all of her examples are off but she is right that humans use MBTI type systems to constrict themselves into a far smaller world and behavioral pattern than necessary. Hence my XIII experiments on this forum.

 

[WhatTheFunction]

I think what she's saying makes sense but I also think it is all how you take in and apply the information. If you get so unhealthily obsessed and judgmental with typing like she did, then sure - you've become unhealthy.

I can't speak for others who use this information but I know that I think of it all as an interesting and complex theory. That theoretically, people can fit into these categories by the way they think and that one person is no worse than the other because they're different. That an NT and an SJ may be different but they both have something to offer.

Honesty, I see MBTI (more towards jung functions than anything) as fun and interesting. It's cool to try and "type" people to me. Not necessarily to write them off, but to see if the patterns I've discovered in the theories are consistent and that my understanding of the system flourishes. It's more just studying and learning, which I love to do.

There was a time where I thought that myself, an INTP, wouldn't be able to relate to most people. This was a pretty dark and depressing time. I now realize, after seeing that most people I talk to aren't NTs, that it's not that I can't relate to people because I'm *different*, it's that I didn't want to relate to people because I thought I was special. I think this goes pretty well with unhealthy INTJs as well who use their MBTI personality to cast away potential friends/partners.

On whether I believe that 16 categories cover the entire world? Not sure. But the fact that people generally stick to these ways of thinking (again with the cognitive functions) is why I believe that maybe people aren't as unique as we believe we are. Sure, maybe there aren't exactly 16 boxes to put people in, but believing all of us are different when we grow in the same environment, well, that's just mathematically impossible to me.

In the end, she does have a point. She especially has a point if people are using the theory and applying it as negatively as she claims that she does. If you treat it less seriously and not like it's the Gospel, I think you'll learn that it won't consume you but rather enlighten you.

(I'm sorry if this is poorly written. I just wrote what was at the top of my head. Kind of like word-vomit.)

 

[Lyra]

It's not about treating it less seriously, it's about treating it with more accuracy and less philosophical naivete. A more accurate rendering of the actual functional processes involved (i.e. Pod'Lair's, or those directly derived from Pod'Lair's) immediately renders the majority of the stereotypes indulged in by MBTIers, bigots, and type-superiority-types obsolete. And a basic understanding of the problem of causal inference, and of attributing behaviours causally and directly to an abstract psychological entity (INTPness, or Tiness), does away with the rest.

Waftiness is not the answer. Waftiness will not help the millions of people whose lives are worse off, less understood, and less honoured and appreciated for the absence of a full understanding of what the cognitive configuration phenomenon is and means. The FiNe trampled by a harsh system, the Nai'xyy with overactive simulators mis-diagnosed as Schizophrenics, the NeFi who are ridden over and used as young people, the interpretives who contort themselves and deny themselves for literal standards, the uncountables who stay locked in misery whilst trying to force psychotherapies and psychological treatments on themselves which don't account for this basic information...

This is not trivial. The configuration phenomenon, the concept of stresslock, the concepts of momentum and modulation, the energetic Peak Pathway, the energy relationships between all different power interactions across all different configurations... these things are epoch-making discoveries, fundamental to our right apprehension and treatment of our fellow humans and of ourselves. But their use is still subject to naive causal thinking and to the weakness and desire for comfort which has people limit themselves and try to box in, and thereby remove the fear and vastness from, the rest of the world. The answer is not to hide them away or take it all a bit less seriously, guys. The answer is to do it right.

 

[ummidk]

First I'm just gonna say I really like this post ^ and I think there should be a lot more done into studying these types of things, I don't see a big corporate opportunity here (In fact this may be a disservice to corporations financially speaking) so I'm not going to hold my breath.


Well I'd agree its not that definitive.... there's a reason when you take the test you can score anywhere from 51%-100% of the questions in a certain way(I.E introverted responses) and your declared an I, but the profiles are designed for the "ideal"(For lack of a better word) of the type. In the real world however these ideals never or at least very rarely exist and I'd say people fall somewhere in between.

I've read that its really poorly scientifically supported when its tested, but with such a subjective test like this that doesn't account for certain things it should(scaling for preferred answers, I.E. in our society T's are valued) I'm not surprised, but I find the underlying assumptions to certainly be valid on one level or another with just my own personal experience with it. I mean if anythings testament of its overall accuracy though I'd say this forum as well as other mbti forums for specific types are pretty good at that as you can see that the general interests of that group of people seem to fall into similar categories.

 

[Lyra]

Well I'd agree its not that definitive.... theres a reason when you take the test you can score anywhere from 51%-100% of the questions in a certain way(I.E introverted responses) and your declared an I, but the profiles are designed for the "ideal"(For lack of a better word) of the type. In the real world however these ideals never or at least very rarely exist and I'd say people fall somewhere in between.

Yes, the MBTI test is flawed to the point of uselessness, and is more often inaccurate than accurate. That is irrelevant to the phenomenon it attempts to measure. Any clear thought about this would make the obvious inference that if the phenomenon is there and the instrument isn't working, then perhaps a better means of measurement is needed.

Bear in mind that Jung-- flaws aside-- didn't use anything like the MBTI. He used extended whole psyche analysis. In recent years, visual reading methods have developed far beyond either.

 

[nightstreaking]

@Lyra Quick question: what do you think of Auburn's CognitiveTypes? Sorry if you've shared your opinion elsewhere, but I'd like to know.

 

[Lyra]

@nightstreaking @Auburn and I ran the physiognomy.me project together for a few months, and I'm very familiar with his thinking. His visual reading is derived from Pod'Lair, and he would really do better to train harder on his source material before publishing his findings. That's not to say that I don't think he might have valid criticisms; the simple fact is that he just misses very basic cues, dichotomies, and factors known about by those competent in the field he's trying to teach on.

For example, he doesn't really understand, and is unable to read, the adaptive/directive phenomenon, which is manifested in a certain and very obvious kind of gesturing. He similarly doesn't know how to read the distinct signals that each function gives off, or the distinct gesturing modes or patterns of movement that characterise each configuration. He also hasn't yet processed or integrated the great amount of insight contained in the terms (hunter/fighter/tower, power 'form' names etc.) coined by the individual who discovered and first formulated visual reading, and is totally unaware of fundamental discoveries like the sequential 'power flows', which highly accurately describe how any individual function kicks into action and generates activity over a period of time.

Now, I'm personally for free thought and inquiry and debate, and I want Auburn to do well. It's just that his whole model right now fails to integrate the implications the basic cues and factors involved in visual reading necessitate, or even acknowledge those factors' existence. Auburn got his lead from others but didn't take the time to really study what they'd discovered. Any criticisms he has, or epistemological alterations or alterations in focus he wants to make, would carry far more weight if this basic competency were in place first.

One criticism Auburn consistently levels against Pod'Lair is that its presentation is poor. This may or may not be true, but I would point out that there is so much to communicate with this kind of model. First time around, it's very hard to get right. Especially if you're simultaneously trying to push the recognition and the implications. But that doesn't make it wrong or inherently flawed to do so. And perhaps you might even make mistakes, or recruit the wrong people to do your graphic design! It might just be a matter of a complex problem requiring very nuanced calibration that could radically change the reception. What I would say is that, regardless or criticisms, Auburn, as a would-be authority on this phenomenon, has a duty, for basic competency's sake, to be familiar with the arguments and information at stake. He's not just a listener or student, by the role he's taken on for himself, and this requires him to work through the information, badly presented or not.

I'm sure Adymus will have more to say, from his perspective, in time. But that's my thinking.

 

[nightstreaking]

@nightstreaking @Auburn and I ran the physiognomy.me project together for a few months, and I'm very familiar with his thinking. His visual reading is derived from Pod'Lair, and he would really do better to train harder on his source material before publishing his findings. That's not to say that I don't think he might have valid criticisms; the simple fact is that he just misses very basic cues, dichotomies, and factors known about by those competent in the field he's trying to teach on...

Pod'Lair is interesting. I'd ask why you have such complete faith in it (as a more accurate/scientific system), but there are older threads plied with information, so I'll just read those. Thanks.

Edit: I liked the girl in the video, too, though I didn't expect her to be NeFi.

 

[Lyra]

Pod'Lair is interesting. I'd ask why you have such complete faith in it (as a more accurate/scientific system), but there are older threads plied with information, so I'll just read those. Thanks.

Edit: I liked the girl in the video, too, though I didn't expect her to be NeFi.

Well, I'm not sure my position is exactly the same as it was then, and I'm not sure it's accurate to say that I have faith in anything. What I do think is that the visual reading methods and certain of the formulations which originate with Pod'Lair have significantly more explanatory power in framing human differences and tendencies than any other typological, personality, or cognitive model I've encountered. I also think that the evidence for elements of them (not necessarily the entire package, in the form it's presented in), properly approached, is conclusive.

That said, whilst I am totally unconvinced by the Massive Modularity Hypothesis, I also find elements of some of the better Evolutionary Psychology illuminating, and still personally make use of a number of very obscure models dealing with specific aspects of human functioning that Pod'Lair doesn't deal with. Such as the flux of affective atmospheres across individuals, or the rhythms of temporal experience that people collectively and unconsciously get into, and that are amenable to influence. For me the discoveries brought to light by Pod'Lair, and some basic implications of them, are... just basic. But I don't take it as a comprehensive model of humans or limit upon behaviour and possible correct orientations towards the world.

 

[SpaceYeti]

I don't like her because she's a hippy. She probably smells. At the same time, however, I know it's not the case, and I'm saying she sucks in a way and is unaccepted in order to see how people react, especially her, if she ever sees this... which I know she won't.

But, no, seriously, people aren't special snowflakes. People are very similar. Obviously, not cookie cutter, but not everybody's special, not anyone can be president, and beauty isn't on the inside.

 

[Lyra]

@SpaceYeti I do think everybody is special, actually. Try seeing how one person trips versus another, or give everybody the huge amount of coaching in artistic output that somebody like Mozart or Beethoven had from a young age (interestingly, the main difference between the best known/most highly achieving performers/creators and others is just hours of structured practice put in). My bet is that the uniqueness of each individual and the world they embody/inhabit would come through under those circumstances. Their art would be theirs, their output theirs, their trip theirs-- and it would be sublime.

It's hard to realise just how infinite the differences and subtle re-combinations and uniquenesses in our species is. No individual could ever encompass or connect with it all in its vast multitude. And different defensible standards of excellence, or what's worthwhile, just make the whole thing overwhelming. It's easier to accept a simple and naive stratification by worth, allowing yourself to focus on a scale you can deal with. But the world's bigger and more beautiful than that, and so is our species. Things you'll totally ignore and devalue your whole life have such order and majesty and vast variation to them, and you'll never have the one answer that solves and connects it all, or the one correct orientation, or the one key to categorise it all, and you can't really do anything about that.

Yes, there are common structures, and these are beautiful and explanatory. But the commonalities, and what can be explained, don't even begin to box in or do away with that infinity, with the sheer immensity of possibility and difference and vastness that each individual must, in our world, take his own stance in relation to.

 

[nightstreaking]

But, no, seriously, people aren't special snowflakes. People are very similar. Obviously, not cookie cutter, but not everybody's special, not anyone can be president, and beauty isn't on the inside.

Blasphemy!

Spoiler

That is to say, lul.

Well, I'm not sure my position is exactly the same as it was then, and I'm not sure it's accurate to say that I have faith in anything. What I do think is that the visual reading methods and certain of the formulations which originate with Pod'Lair have significantly more explanatory power in framing human differences and tendencies than any other topological, personality, or cognitive model I've encountered. I also think that the evidence for elements of them (not necessarily the entire package, in the form it's presented in), properly approached, is conclusive... For me the discoveries brought to light by Pod'Lair, and some basic implications of them, are... just basic. But I don't take it as a comprehensive model of humans or limit upon behaviour and possible correct orientations towards the world.

I see--I assumed. I've seen you defending Pod'Lair and figured you prescribe to it absolutely. Humans are too complex... it seems there's a few more decades' wait for a real integrated, objective and lucid system. (We might all be dead by then.)

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

Also, I do not understand why is here. Is this guy new?


*shudders*

 

[Lyra]

I see--I assumed. I've seen you defending Pod'Lair and figured you prescribe to it absolutely. Humans are too complex... it seems there's a few more decades' wait for a real integrated, objective and lucid system. (We might all be dead by then.)

See, I think this desire for total 'objectivity' that so many @Cognisant @Auburn buy into is primarily a way of dealing with fear of the vastness and unconstrained unpredictability of our experience in this life. It's not that different-- as humans tend not to be that different-- from how our ancestors did away with the fear and the massiveness and the burden of life's possibility by reigning it all in with a creator's/God's 'law'.

There is a lot to explain, and a lot to understand. But I don't think that

1) We have any evidence that humans, or even the world at its most fundamental physical levels or macro event levels, are deterministic or predictable in a way amenable to total 'objective' modelling.
2) Are likely to satisfy people's fear of the great immensity of the world even with far more advanced understandings/syntheses/formulations than we have now.

I think that life will carry on challenging, surprising, and morphing beyond any possibility of control. And I think this will be a very subjective experience.

That said-- as for a lucid system... well, certainly Pod'Lair's insights do go far, when combined with a correct understanding of their limits and of causality. But I'd agree with you that they are only one element, and that there is very much still to be discovered, and that they would need to be synthesised with.

 

[nightstreaking]

@SpaceYeti
Yes, there are common structures, and these are beautiful and explanatory. But the commonalities, and what can be explained, don't even begin to box in or do away with that infinity, with the sheer immensity of possibility and difference and vastness that each individual must, in our world, take his own stance in relation to.

This is beautiful.

 

[snafupants]

In a sense, MBTI is unreasonable. Every one doesn't fit snugly into sixteen boxes and a JCF perspective doesn't jibe with the letters. It's probably a mistake to cross-pollinate the cognitive functions and letters. The last letter is so confused in people's minds. It really tells you whether judging is extraverted or introverted but MBTI postulates this whole other thing (e.g., P types are dirty and unorganized).

 

[Lyra]

Agreed.

 

[Cognisant]

MBTI is just a system of classification, as is Pod'Lair, so of course they don't cover everything, a person's entire identity can't be summed up in four letters, instead a system of classification works by sorting things based upon arbitrary criteria.

If I sort a collection of rocks by size, shape and colour I've classified them by those qualities, but two rocks in the same class might be of entirely different materials, which may or may not matter, if I'm sorting beads maybe it dosen't matter if they're glass or plastic, likewise typology might have some relevance to a project leader organising who should work with who on which project, but most of the time it's fairly irrelevant.

I can't believe people care so much about something so trivial.

 

[Cognisant]

1) We have any evidence that humans, or even the world at its most fundamental physical levels or macro event levels, are deterministic or predictable in a way amenable to total 'objective' modelling.

You're a subjectivist, so there's really no point discussing philosophy with you because, by your own admission, if I say I live in a clockwork universe for all you know I'm right.

2) Are likely to satisfy people's fear of the great immensity of the world even with far more advanced understandings/syntheses/formulations than we have now.

It is a wise man who knows how little he knows.

Although if you deny knowledge altogether in effect you justify me calling you ignorant

 

[Lyra]

You're a subjectivist, so there's really no point discussing philosophy with you because, by your own admission, if I say I live in a clockwork universe for all you know I'm right.

That's what I said, is it? I was under the impression that I was taking the very conservative position that our objective knowledge, of which there is much, contains no evidence justifying either

a) The inevitability of millenarian robot-transcendence to a somehow trans-subjective realm.

or

b) The position that the universe is wholly predictable. At quantum mechanical levels, our best scientific knowledge currently indicates precisely the opposite. Some argue that this doesn't necessarily imply that the macro event level isn't entirely predictable and deterministic, but that is a position which requires some serious justification, and for which there is no conclusive evidence I'm aware of.

or

c) That we have strong reason to believe that sufficient objective knowledge will somehow nullify the problems, unpredictability or vastness (to an individual) of subjective experience.

So, it's impossible to argue philosophy with me because of that? Seems like you're the one engaging in sloppy thinking here, Cog.

W.r.t my other points, stating that the objective knowledge available to us doesn't nullify the subjective realm, or (if you take the very reasonable position that the objective/subjective distinction isn't as easy or clear cut as we might like it to be) that psychological motivations might be affecting a certain relationship to or belief about the nature of objectivity, certainly isn't denying the possibility of 'knowledge' or of reasoned, logical, or scientific endeavour.

 

[Lyra]

MBTI is just a system of classification, as is Pod'Lair, so of course they don't cover everything, a person's entire identity can't be summed up in four letters, instead a system of classification works by sorting things based upon arbitrary criteria.

If I sort a collection of rocks by size, shape and colour I've classified them by those qualities, but two rocks in the same class might be of entirely different materials, which may or may not matter, if I'm sorting beads maybe it dosen't matter if they're glass or plastic, likewise typology might have some relevance to a project leader organising who should work with who on which project, but most of the time it's fairly irrelevant.

I can't believe people care so much about something so trivial.

This is, again, very sloppy thinking. That things can be classified trivially does not imply that any possible classification is trivial.

For an example of this, the taxonomies by which we attempt to order phylogenetic trees and evolutionary species generation/splits/extinctions are far from trivial. Different classifications (for example, by common ancestor, or by genetic content, or...) are possible, but all are certainly not equal, and the whole endeavour is useful because it is involves attempting to formalise and generate definitions upon the basis of huge amounts of empirical, non-trivial discovery. In this case, genetic/evolutionary discovery.

With regards to typology, your point is very weak. That there are distinct cognitive structures in play certainly is not trivial or irrelevant-- it just needs to be placed properly. If true, it's factual content about our species, its cognitive functioning, and the logic behind commonly perceived differences in orientation and development. Further claims about momentum/modulation, stresslock, etc. etc. are highly relevant to individual experience and orientation towards the world, and to knowledgeably perceiving and affecting elements of one's own being. People certainly use it wrong, as I've stated in former posts in this thread, but that in no way suggests the irrelevancy of the information/phenomenon itself.

 

[Hawkeye]

Using the standard approach, there are 4,421,275 different MBTI combinations.

 

[Duxwing]

See, I think this desire for total 'objectivity' that so many @Cognisant @Auburn buy into is primarily a way of dealing with fear of the vastness and unconstrained unpredictability of our experience in this life. It's not that different-- as humans tend not to be that different-- from how our ancestors did away with the fear and the massiveness and the burden of life's possibility by reigning it all in with a creator's/God's 'law'.

Does the psychological state of the person making a claim affect the truth and validity of the claim? No, so, although some people, including myself to a degree, attempt to use their intellect as a coping mechanism for anxiety, let's not distract ourselves with useless psychoanalysis while perfectly cogent and useful theories of reality exist.

There is a lot to explain, and a lot to understand. But I don't think that

1) We have any evidence that humans, or even the world at its most fundamental physical levels or macro event levels, are deterministic or predictable in a way amenable to total 'objective' modelling.

Sure, we might see non-deterministic behavior at the quantum level via the double-slit experiment, but such a tiny non-determinism does not necessarily add up to non-determinism at large scales-- especially in the hot (>300K) and electromagnetically noisy environment of the brain and body, an environment that precludes the significance of quantum phenomena. Furthermore, a non-deterministic universe cannot be understood-- not even by 'spiritual experience'-- and since we have been able to understand the macrophenomena of this universe (and via deterministic models, no less!) we can induct that the observed universe is deterministic. Given that humans are, for all clinical purposes, macrophenomena, then, humans are also therefore deterministic.

And please, for the love of logic, don't pull a DaBlob and retreat into Solipsism or Godel, for doing so destroys your hypothesis as much as it does anyone else's.

2) Are likely to satisfy people's fear of the great immensity of the world even with far more advanced understandings/syntheses/formulations than we have now.

This is idle, ad-hominem conjecture about a psychological state that you have not demonstrated to necessarily exist in the minds of philosophers.

I think that life will carry on challenging, surprising, and morphing beyond any possibility of control. And I think this will be a very subjective experience.

And I think that we can explain the how of life with laws of nature.

That said-- as for a lucid system... well, certainly Pod'Lair's insights do go far, when combined with a correct understanding of their limits and of causality. But I'd agree with you that they are only one element, and that there is very much still to be discovered, and that they would need to be synthesised with.

As far as we know, no 'limit' to causality exists.

-Duxwing

 

[Cognisant]

With regards to typology, your point is very weak. That there are distinct cognitive structures in play certainly is not trivial or irrelevant-- it just needs to be placed properly

But that's just it, they're not distinct, behaviourally I'm a loner so you could say I'm an introvert but online I'm attention seeking and energised by interaction, which would make me an extrovert, so clearly I'm neither exactly a INTP or ENTP, at least not all of the time.

For that matter what are cognitive structures exactly?

Look Lyra, of the two of us I'm the objectivist one right, so if typology was an objectively valid thing I'd be all over it, but I'm not, because in my admittedly subjective experience it's just not very accurate and furthermore there's no clear objective basis for the distinction between (for example) introversion and extroversion. Although if there is please tell me, I'd love to know, what's the specific trait that extroverts or introverts exhibit that the other does not?

It's like mathematics (I'm sure you'll agree with me on this) mathematics is an abstract representation of reality, while reality itself isn't necessarily mathematical, as we've made new discoveries new math had to be invented to explain them and it's entirely possible, indeed probable, that further math will have to be invented to explain the discoveries we've yet to make.

Likewise typology isn't the be all and end all of psychology, it doesn't explain everything and as such it's uses (though entirely valid) are limited.

But people treat it like it is the be all and end all of psychology, which it simply isn't, you have to admit knowing someone's type isn't going to tell you everything about them, it's not going to enable you to predict how they're going to act in any given situation, it's just a system of classification and that's all.

She's a NeFi, not INFP. Her understanding of the cognitive configuration phenomenon is certainly less than definitive.

See now that's taking typology too far, just because she's a whatever doesn't mean you can jump to conclusions about how she thinks or what she knows, and if you think it does, well mate as I said before of the two of us I'm the objectivist one, I'm the one that's liable to be dismissively reductionist and here I'm telling you that you're going too far.

Frankly I'm surprised we're having this conversation, I would have thought things would be the other way around with me being dismissively reductionist and you telling me to pull my head in.

 

[Cognisant]

Like this

So, it's impossible to argue philosophy with me because of that? Seems like you're the one engaging in sloppy thinking here, Cog.

And no, not impossible, just pointless.

Knowledge is objective, it's never really verifiably absolutely true, but still, insofar as we can be sure we are sure that certain things are so, but subjectivism denies this, it is essentially the categorial denial of evidence, but if you deny evidence (without other evidence that refutes it, in which case it wouldn't be subjectivism) then what are you basing you arguments upon? Without evidence there's just opinion and people can have whatever opinion they like, which goes both ways, so there's no way for you to argue me out of my position nor for me to argue you out of yours, and so the discussion is just a pointless exchange of opinions.

 

[Lyra]

Like this

And no, not impossible, just pointless.

Knowledge is objective, it's never really verifiably absolutely true, but still, insofar as we can be sure we are sure that certain things are so, but subjectivism denies this, it is essentially the categorial denial of evidence, but if you deny evidence (without other evidence that refutes it, in which case it wouldn't be subjectivism) then what are you basing you arguments upon? Without evidence there's just opinion and people can have whatever opinion they like, which goes both ways, so there's no way for you to argue me out of my position nor for me to argue you out of yours, and so the discussion is just a pointless exchange of opinions.

You didn't even read what I wrote, did you? I explicitly stated that my position isn't the one you're critiquing here. Argument with me certainly is pointless if your don't read what I say...

 

[Cognisant]

I like to play games with subjectivists, for instance if I cannot refute your opinions because without evidence I can't be sure if you're wrong or right, but it can be my opinion that you're an idiot which would be an ad hominem attack except from a subjectivist viewpoint you can't refute me either.

Except I'm not a subjectivist so I don't have to play by these rules, I can objectively declare you an idiot (without evidence, or bullshit evidence) which is an ad hominem attack except you still can't call me out on it because you're still a subjectivist so you still can't refute me without making a hypocrite of yourself

You didn't even read what I wrote, did you? I explicitly stated that my position isn't the one you're critiquing here. Argument with me certainly is pointless if your don't read what I say...

You're still a subjectivist.

 

[Lyra]

But that's just it, they're not distinct, behaviourally I'm a loner so you could say I'm an introvert but online I'm attention seeking and energised by interaction, which would make me an extrovert, so clearly I'm neither exactly a INTP or ENTP, at least not all of the time.

It would really help if you ascertained my position. None of what you're saying is either particularly relevant or particularly in contradiction to it. E and I are MBTI terms, not terms with much to do with what I understand as the cognitive configuration phenomenon. Ti/Zai, to me, is a subjectively oriented process that can be energised by social phenomenon, not one that all social interaction is going to drain.

You are right, though, that those dichotomies are crude and misleading, or often used in a crude or misleading way. Functions aren't 'distinctly' delimitable to either letter in them (e.g. E/I).

For that matter what are cognitive structures exactly?

Perhaps it would be more accurate to call them behavioural/bodily/expression-relevant structures. They are what is observed when dealing with the phenomenon in question, but their status in relation to other aspects of cognition or other cognitive systems or aspects of consciousness has yet to be clarified in a way satisfying to me.

Look Lyra, of the two of us I'm the objectivist one right, so if typology was an objectively valid thing I'd be all over it, but I'm not, because in my admittedly subjective experience it's just not very accurate and furthermore there's no clear objective basis for the distinction between (for example) introversion and extroversion. Although if there is please tell me, I'd love to know, what's the specific trait that extroverts or introverts exhibit that the other does not?

Your first sentence (bolded) is a logical trianwreck. It doesn't follow that you'd be all over typology because of being an 'objectivist', unless you also attribute omnisicence and infallibility to yourself. You're implying that by taking the naive philosophical position that you do you're automatically able/entitled to judge what is 'out there' in the world and what isn't. Secondly, there's no clear basis for the distinction between what you're thinking of as 'introversion' and 'extroversion'-- agreed. What there is is a clear actual distinction between primarily objective and subjective processes (these terms here having a very different meaning than they do in the context of the rest of this post), and that you can go look at read samples and do research to get an idea for how this works in the practice of visual reading.

Likewise typology isn't the be all and end all of psychology, it doesn't explain everything and as such it's uses (though entirely valid) are limited.

As I stated/agreed earlier in the thread. Your point?

But people treat it like it is the be all and end all of psychology, which it simply isn't, you have to admit knowing someone's type isn't going to tell you everything about them, it's not going to enable you to predict how they're going to act in any given situation,

Agreed. Your point?

it's just a system of classification and that's all.

Does not follow from your premise. Not being comprehensive or a total causal system for the explanation of human behaviour does not make something 'just' a system of classification, 'that's all'.

Sloppy, again.

 

[Lyra]

I like to play games with subjectivists, for instance if I cannot refute your opinions because without evidence I can't be sure if you're wrong or right, but it can be my opinion that you're an idiot which would be an ad hominem attack except from a subjectivist viewpoint you can't refute me either.

Except I'm not a subjectivist so I don't have to play by these rules, I can objectively declare you an idiot (without evidence, or bullshit evidence) which is an ad hominem attack except you still can't call me out on it because you're still a subjectivist so you still can't refute me without making a hypocrite of yourself


You're still a subjectivist.

You're literally just writing nonsense, here. Your words would be as applicable to any random person in any forum who you deigned to attribute this position to and then proceeded to write at. It's your choice to express irrelevant idiocy, of course, but that's what it is until you identify my arguments and my position and respond to what they are.

What is a 'subjectivist' anyway? And where did I state that I was one?

 

[Lyra]

Quote:
'She's a NeFi, not INFP. Her understanding of the cognitive configuration phenomenon is certainly less than definitive. '

See now that's taking typology too far, just because she's a whatever doesn't mean you can jump to conclusions about how she thinks or what she knows, and if you think it does, well mate as I said before of the two of us I'm the objectivist one, I'm the one that's liable to be dismissively reductionist and here I'm telling you that you're going too far.

Frankly I'm surprised we're having this conversation, I would have thought things would be the other way around with me being dismissively reductionist and you telling me to pull my head in.

I didn't say she didn't understand it because NeFi is her config., or that her config. is explanatory of all of her behaviours or thoughts.

You're having a bad day philosophically, Cog. You need to take a step back and realise that almost everything you're saying is addressing a figment of your own imagination, not anything to do with my position.

Again, please tell me just what an 'objectivist' is, and why I'm not one. Do you mean that you're a physicalist? Or that you believe in the proposition (for which there is no evidence) that the universe is entirely deterministic (which wouldn't be a very objective position, given the lack of evidence and widely acknowledged philosophical weakness of it) or what?

 

[Cognisant]

Riiiight.

Perhaps I have misunderstood you, perhaps.

 

[Lyra]

Riiiight.

Perhaps I have misunderstood you, perhaps.

Fairly sure you have, and are trying to save face.

Poor show.

 

[Lyra]

@Duxwing

Does the psychological state of the person making a claim affect the truth and validity of the claim? No, so, although some people, including myself to a degree, attempt to use their intellect as a coping mechanism for anxiety, let's not distract ourselves with useless psychoanalysis while perfectly cogent and useful theories of reality exist.

Given that we're writing in a psychology forum, it's a little bizarre to describe psychological explanations as 'a distraction'. If my post were in response to a debate about the factual/argumentative strength of certain positions, then I agree that it would have been out of place. But it wasn't.

Psychological explanations don't render otherwise valid positions invalid, but that does not make them universally irrelevant.

Sure, we might see non-deterministic behavior at the quantum level via the double-slit experiment, but such a tiny non-determinism does not necessarily add up to non-determinism at large scales-- especially in the hot (>300K) and electromagnetically noisy environment of the brain and body, an environment that precludes the significance of quantum phenomena. Furthermore, a non-deterministic universe cannot be understood-- not even by 'spiritual experience'-- and since we have been able to understand the macrophenomena of this universe (and via deterministic models, no less!) we can induct that the observed universe is deterministic. Given that humans are, for all clinical purposes, macrophenomena, then, humans are also therefore deterministic.

And please, for the love of logic, don't pull a DaBlob and retreat into Solipsism or Godel, for doing so destroys your hypothesis as much as it does anyone else's.

Does not necessarily. Right. But the same conclusion holds in the opposite direction. And suggests a weakness in your a priori assertion than the universe is deterministic, given that we have strong reason to believe that some of the scales at which we understand it with most precision aren't.

Now, I already acknowledged the possibility that macro level functioning was deterministic, somehow. But we have no evidence for this other than with regards to the operation of certain and limited ordered processes. I certainly agree that many if not most processes out there can be either fully or partially modeled in lucid and comprehensible models. Although many of these models (including the cog. config phenomena, for instance) might perhaps not quite look like what we expect at this specific time in this specific century (as our current ones look different from what every other decade/century expected).

What I find a much more tenuous assertion, on your part, is that a non-totally-deterministic universe 'cannot be understood'. Why? Could a stochastic universe not be understood? (Probability theory probability theory and many of our best scientific models suggest otherwise). Could a universe with distinct deterministic and non-deterministic interacting elements not be understood, just not totally predicted? Why is a probabilistic universe, or one with a few black-boxes or even agents here and there, antithetical to comprehension? What is your justification for this very extreme and unusual position?

Furthermore, your inference that our relative understanding of some macrophenomena means that we can 'induct' a total model of the workings of everything, with no further ado required, is a logical fallacy. There are no two ways about that. It's equivalent to saying 'some x are white', and 'x are things in the universe', and 'therefore all things in the universe are white'. Let's take x as 'swans'. 'Some swans are white, and swans are things in the universe, therefore all things in the universe are white'. This is a logical equivalent of your argument. I'm not convinced.

This is idle, ad-hominem conjecture about a psychological state that you have not demonstrated to necessarily exist in the minds of philosophers.

Well, ad-hominem is only relevant in so far as it is used to undermine somebody's credibility within the context of an argument not originally about them as a subject matter. It's not a logical fallacy in so far as part of our primary purpose is psychological explanation. It's not a conjecture in that I stated that I did not see evidence for a certain proposition, which would then make that proposition the conjectural one and my position the conservative and hesitant one.

And I think that we can explain the how of life with laws of nature.

Let's say I agreed with you (despite your not defining 'laws of nature' or your evidence and reasons for believing in them). Determinism and the reduction/domination/neutralisation of all subjectivity to an objective mathematics of determinism in no way follows. Laws of Nature could certainly be conceived of, as a thought experiment, to accommodate either scenario.

Quote:
That said-- as for a lucid system... well, certainly Pod'Lair's insights do go far, when combined with a correct understanding of their limits and of causality. But I'd agree with you that they are only one element, and that there is very much still to be discovered, and that they would need to be synthesised with.
As far as we know, no 'limit' to causality exists.

You misread me. I said of 'their' limits explicitly in relation to Pod'Lair's insight. I then said 'and of causality'. As in 'a correct understanding of causality', in shorthand reference to the literature about the hugely controversial areas of mental causation and even the notion of causality itself (in academia). My point being that I find that controversy itself useful in promoting a conservative and more accurate understanding of what something like the existence of the cog. config phenomena might imply.

 

[Cognisant]

Okay I take it back.

You're a patronising prick who has back-pedalled on his previous position and I could call you out on that in detail except, first of all I have enough faith in the intelligence if the other members that I don't believe I need to, and second of all I think I'd be getting myself into a bullshitting match with an expert bullshitter, and finally as patronising as you are I still don't really care enough to justify the effort.

But go ahead provoke me all you like, deface yourself.

 

[Lyra]

Okay I take it back.

You're a patronising prick who has back-pedalled on his previous position and I could call you out on that in detail except, first of all I have enough faith in the intelligence if the other members that I don't believe I need to, and second of all I think I'd be getting myself into a bullshitting match with an expert bullshitter, and finally as patronising as you are I still don't really care enough to justify the effort.

But go ahead provoke me all you like, deface yourself.

I'd rather you proved it, actually, because I don't think I did back-pedal, do think you're taking the base assumption that I must be mystically wafty and wrong and stupid and 'subjectivist' and reasoning from there, and do think you're just riled because you're experiencing the consequences of that kind of patronising thinking.

This is a philosophical argument. You get to stop playing if the other person just can't be talked to, or isn't arguing with reason, but I've answered you point by point in a coherent manner about a subject important to me and about which I have thought a lot. Writing off everything I say by just saying 'bullshit' and 'smart people will obviously see that I'm right' and 'you're a prick so nobody cares anyway' is a cop-out anybody could use when their back is up against the wall in that kind of argument, and that they only tend to use when they have no other option left.

It's not evidence, it's not an argument, and it's not a conclusion-- and I have offered all three of those very clearly throughout this thread, and in contradiction to your repeated cartoon-characterisations of me, because I'm arguing about a specific topic and that's how logical argument/refutation/conversation progresses.

Why don't you start by going back and answering my questions/disputes in previous posts, point by point?

 

[Brontosaurie]

can't imagine i'm bringing anything new but:

damn she fine.

her point is rather vague however. she treats the topic as if people believed MBTI is the only valid model. those people, if existent, are way too easy a target to provoke relevant criticism.

 

[snafupants]

MBTI is just a system of classification, as is Pod'Lair, so of course they don't cover everything, a person's entire identity can't be summed up in four letters, instead a system of classification works by sorting things based upon arbitrary criteria.

I agreed until I saw arbitrary. It seems likely, and factor analysis supports the following assertion, that introversion and extraversion are relatively indivisible, static and important facets of temperament. The Big 5, like the MBTI, recognizes the salience of interpersonal orientation and incorporates the extraversion scale. Things like surgency, assertiveness, energy level, and sociability have been linked to high extraversion scores on the Big 5 personality test. I wouldn't call these subfactors arbitrary. In fact, as an employer I would be very interested in these scores. The main shortcoming of MBTI-like tests is their self-assessment nature. Most people either don't really know themselves and/or paint an idealized self-image. Such confounds make results dubious.

 

[Duxwing]

@Duxwing

Given that we're writing in a psychology forum, it's a little bizarre to describe psychological explanations as 'a distraction'. If my post were in response to a debate about the factual/argumentative strength of certain positions, then I agree that it would have been out of place. But it wasn't.

Your post contains more than one point, and furthermore, your initial argument about the psychological motivations of reductionists displayed their philosophy in a dismissve tone. Therefore, you either had a slip of the tongue and allowed your personal contempt for reductionism to seep into your descriptions of it, or you actually intended to dismiss it.

Psychological explanations don't render otherwise valid positions invalid, but that does not make them universally irrelevant.

That's a strawman argument considering that I was arguing against your ad-hominem.

Does not necessarily. Right. But the same conclusion holds in the opposite direction. And suggests a weakness in your a priori assertion than the universe is deterministic, given that we have strong reason to believe that some of the scales at which we understand it with most precision aren't.

Another strawman: I assumed a-priori that the universe is determinitic at large scales, and the observations of biologists, chemists, and even physicists-- apart from those working at scales too small to be relevant to the practical applications of studying brain function-- support this conclusion.

Now, I already acknowledged the possibility that macro level functioning was deterministic, somehow.

The data point to macro level functioning being deterministic.

But we have no evidence for this other than with regards to the operation of certain and limited ordered processes.

We can't know everything, so we reason based on statistically valid samples-- a foundation of the stochastic probability theory that you used as a counterexample. In fact, almost all of statistial theory involves sampling. Your reasoning appears to be inconsistent.

I certainly agree that many if not most processes out there can be either fully or partially modeled in lucid and comprehensible models. Although many of these models (including the cog. config phenomena, for instance) might perhaps not quite look like what we expect at this specific time in this specific century (as our current ones look different from what every other decade/century expected).

I agree that new ideas are often unexpected, but what is your point?

What I find a much more tenuous assertion, on your part, is that a non-totally-deterministic universe 'cannot be understood'. Why? Could a stochastic universe not be understood? (Probability theory probability theory and many of our best scientific models suggest otherwise). Could a universe with distinct deterministic and non-deterministic interacting elements not be understood, just not totally predicted? Why is a probabilistic universe, or one with a few black-boxes or even agents here and there, antithetical to comprehension? What is your justification for this very extreme and unusual position?

Strawman: I said that a "non-deterministic universe" cannot be understood. A non-deterministic universe is a universe wherein causes do not lead to effects whatsoever: if you sneeze, then it rains sheep, if you raze a mountain, then the aforementioned sheep turn into beavers, and if you do these actions again, then new, different things-- or nothing at all-- happens. Such a universe cannot be understood.

The universe that you described, on the other hand, can be understood. A fair six-sided dice will, over time, eventually return equal numbers of 1's, 2's, 3's, 4's, 5's, and 6's, and we can model these probabilities statistically.

Furthermore, your inference that our relative understanding of some macrophenomena means that we can 'induct' a total model of the workings of everything, with no further ado required, is a logical fallacy. There are no two ways about that. It's equivalent to saying 'some x are white', and 'x are things in the universe', and 'therefore all things in the universe are white'. Let's take x as 'swans'. 'Some swans are white, and swans are things in the universe, therefore all things in the universe are white'. This is a logical equivalent of your argument. I'm not convinced.

Inductive logic is the cornerstone of statistics and science. Love it or leave it, for no-one but (a) God(s) could ever know everything. Moreover, unless you've discovered some self-evident truths, your beloved Pod'Lair rests on such inferences, so you ought to ditch it if inductive logic bothers you.

Well, ad-hominem is only relevant in so far as it is used to undermine somebody's credibility within the context of an argument not originally about them as a subject matter. It's not a logical fallacy in so far as part of our primary purpose is psychological explanation. It's not a conjecture in that I stated that I did not see evidence for a certain proposition, which would then make that proposition the conjectural one and my position the conservative and hesitant one.

Even fools can, by accident, speak truth. Is it?

Let's say I agreed with you (despite your not defining 'laws of nature' or your evidence and reasons for believing in them). Determinism and the reduction/domination/neutralisation of all subjectivity to an objective mathematics of determinism in no way follows. Laws of Nature could certainly be conceived of, as a thought experiment, to accommodate either scenario.

Can you clarify and expand on this point? The laws of nature, once known, would by definition allow us to objectively model every event in the universe.

You misread me. I said of 'their' limits explicitly in relation to Pod'Lair's insight. I then said 'and of causality'. As in 'a correct understanding of causality', in shorthand reference to the literature about the hugely controversial areas of mental causation and even the notion of causality itself (in academia). My point being that I find that controversy itself useful in promoting a conservative and more accurate understanding of what something like the existence of the cog. config phenomena might imply.

I don't understand the cognitive configuration phenomenon, so I reject it as witchcraft and sorcery. *grabs a torch and pitchfork* BURN THE HEATHEN! CLEANSE THE HERETIC!

... Apart from that, what non-supernatural model of non-deterministic mental activity exists?. Furthermore, why are you attempting to spread your private convictions (which are what any "subjective model" ultimately amounts to) to others? The standard of proof for arguments made to other agents is objective demonstration.

-Duxwing

 

[Lyra]

Strawman: I said that a "non-deterministic universe" cannot be understood. A non-deterministic universe is a universe wherein causes do not lead to effects whatsoever: if you sneeze, then it rains sheep, if you raze a mountain, then the aforementioned sheep turn into beavers, and if you do these actions again, then new, different things-- or nothing at all-- happens. Such a universe cannot be understood.

The universe that you described, on the other hand, can be understood. A fair six-sided dice will, over time, eventually return equal numbers of 1's, 2's, 3's, 4's, 5's, and 6's, and we can model these probabilities statistically.

My original argument was clearly about the psychological aspects of needing to remove unpredictability from our understanding of the world. A deterministic system is one whose future states are entirely determined by past states. You said that 'a non-deterministic universe cannot be understood'. Note that Stochastic systems, which you here acknowledge as comprehensible, are explicitly defined as non-deterministic by any standard definition. You can escape that your original statement was blatantly ridiculous by redefining all the words you used in it to wildly non-standard definitions, but that makes effective communication impossible, and certainly doesn't open me up to a 'strawman' criticism.

Tangentially, to repeat, the introduction of either comprehensible but unpredictable forms of agency or causal black-boxes would render a universe (that is, a whole) non-deterministic. These could be introduced whilst other processes (not the universe, given that the universe means the whole we are dealing with as a total and self-encompassing system) are entirely deterministic, or whilst their impacts by/interactions with non-deterministic elements lead to deterministically predictable conclusions. I'm not saying that this is so-- merely providing further counter-examples to your extreme claim that a non-deterministic universe (where deterministic means... deterministic... not whatever you choose to define it as after the fact) cannot make sense.

Wikipedia:
'Determinism is a metaphysical philosophical position stating that for everything that happens there are conditions such that, given those conditions, nothing else could happen.'

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
'Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature.'

A deterministic universe ≠ a universe in which causes lead to effects.

Therefore

No strawman

Therefore

You are strawmanning me.

 

[Hawkeye]

 

[Lyra]

Your post contains more than one point, and furthermore, your initial argument about the psychological motivations of reductionists displayed their philosophy in a dismissve tone. Therefore, you either had a slip of the tongue and allowed your personal contempt for reductionism to seep into your descriptions of it, or you actually intended to dismiss it.

This might be true-- but that still wouldn't mean I was distracting from the point, would it? I was making the post I was making, which may or may not have indicated my disagreement with the tenability of reductionism as a position. If this was of interest, a further discussion about this could be initiated, from which 'ad hominems' would be a distraction and in the context of which they would constitute a fallacy. Given that no such discussion was in motion until you initiated it, your dismissal of the psychological aspects of my post is still very off-base.

Those aspects, as I'll show in a couple of paragraphs, were the point of my post. If I was taking some premise as granted, there's no reason somebody couldn't (as you did) challenge and discuss that premise. That's all fine, and par for the course-- and nothing to do with 'distracting' ad hominems, which you accused me of.

"Quote:
Does not necessarily. Right. But the same conclusion holds in the opposite direction. And suggests a weakness in your a priori assertion than the universe is deterministic, given that we have strong reason to believe that some of the scales at which we understand it with most precision aren't."

Another strawman: I assumed a-priori that the universe is determinitic at large scales, and the observations of biologists, chemists, and even physicists-- apart from those working at scales too small to be relevant to the practical applications of studying brain function-- support this conclusion.

Oh, they do? And your Nobel Prize for establishing this is shortly to be announced?

Please see my analysis of your 'some x are a, and all x are b, therefore all b are a' logical fallacy earlier in this thread.

We can't know everything, so we reason based on statistically valid samples-- a foundation of the stochastic probability theory that you used as a counterexample. In fact, almost all of statistial theory involves sampling. Your reasoning appears to be inconsistent.

This-- along with your other appeal to the necessity of induction-- is totally misleading.

Induction might apply reasonably within a class: we can know that all humans probably have hearts, from the data we have. Or we can know certain properties about how all atoms move, or about how gravity works. Extending this to making a claim about the nature of the universe as an encompassing whole based upon our limited understanding of certain and limited processes, which understanding itself suggests non-determinism as a vital element of them, is far more tenuous.

If we were to satisfactorily model a few animals, or ecosystems, or total planetary environments, via deterministic modelling, then the induction that the universe was characterised by the properties sufficient to totally model these contexts might be valid. The models we currently have now don't, though, justify the refrain that 'we can't know everything about every event so we just have to infer'-- unless you'd like to demonstrate otherwise. We're still very much at the stage of just not knowing.

My earlier psychological point (and, to make clear, this isn't in itself an argument against universal determinism) regarded the role that the blind-faith assertion of total determinism, and the total elimination of subjectivity and unpredictability (ala Auburn and Cognisant), played in our psyche given this inability to really know at the present state in our knowledge. The surety is out of all proportion to the evidence and the philosophical difficulty of the problem. Why don't people, then, just let the research programs run on the axioms/tracks they're productively running on, and personally withhold judgement or take a more conservative position? My point was to do with that.

I fully support the continuance of scientific research programs based upon the assumption of determinism, if that is a useful assumption. And I don't necessarily reject the possibility of a deterministic universe (although we already seem to have reason to believe it wouldn't be really an fully deterministic, in the way classically envisaged). My interest here was in why a certain, not that strong, position plays such a dominant role in cultural discourse and individual psychology.

"Quote:
Let's say I agreed with you (despite your not defining 'laws of nature' or your evidence and reasons for believing in them). Determinism and the reduction/domination/neutralisation of all subjectivity to an objective mathematics of determinism in no way follows. Laws of Nature could certainly be conceived of, as a thought experiment, to accommodate either scenario."

Can you clarify and expand on this point? The laws of nature, once known, would by definition allow us to objectively model every event in the universe.

Objectively model, perhaps, but why would this necessarily extend to the elimination of unpredictability or the deterministic modelling of every future state from a given known state? What is your justification for a priori asserting that Laws of Nature (however you're defining these, again) couldn't explicitly involve the interaction of unpredictable and predictable elements in a totally modeled, but not totally predictable, manner?

What is your justification for a priori asserting that Nature isn't capable of encoding either partial and specifically placed or less partial and more generally operant unpredictability, or even agency, as a law? A universe of this kind-- whether ours is like that or not-- certainly isn't beyond the limits of human imagination, and wouldn't necessarily be totally chaotic.

An example universe: one in which the physical world is entirely causal and deterministic except in so far as non-deterministic elements interact with and change the course of its causally deterministic processes, and in which life is a physically located and physically limited/constrained nexus between that deterministic causality and something else. I'm not saying this is the universe we live in-- just that its one that could be modeled partially or wholly by laws of nature. I could give more examples, many incompatible with this causal/acausal model. One would be the same interaction but with stochastic processes or only partially or partially modellable deterministic elements, which would more closely match our current models of macro phenomena. The point is that there are a number of ways this could work.

Note that the very concept of 'Laws of Nature' was actually originated by very Christian scientists, who saw them as 'Laws' by which some extra-physical entity-- a God-- set the universe in motion. These scientists all believed in free will and the interaction of physicality and something else. I'm not Christian, and I don't necessarily believe in that. I'm just pointing out that things aren't as clear cut with the 'Laws of Nature' notion as you're implying.

... Apart from that, what non-supernatural model of non-deterministic mental activity exists?. Furthermore, why are you attempting to spread your private convictions (which are what any "subjective model" ultimately amounts to) to others? The standard of proof for arguments made to other agents is objective demonstration.

Why would I need to provide such a model? I don't think we have either non-deterministic or deterministic 'models', as in actual scientific theories, of mental activity. Only preliminary postulations.

As for postulations, there are many. And many would accommodate either stochastic, agential, non-deterministic, deterministic or non-committed ways of thinking about causation. This seems like a Red Herring.

What private convictions? What are you talking about?