MBTI system feels like a trap.

[Seteleechete]

Hello I just recently found out about the MBTI system and I can't help but feel that it is all a massive trap. Before I knew the system I always looked at people objectively based on thier personal traits and quirks, but ever since I found out about this system I always want to put people into an orderly designated place with this system. This is obviously a bad thing, the system has shown it flaws plenty of time to me in the short time I have known it. I fear that if I keep using it I will lose some of my objectivity, at the same time it is another analytical tool to be use, dismissing it's stupid.

Am I just being overly paranoid?

 

[TBerg]

Everyone is formed by a variety of functions. The recognition of this keeps you from diagnosing people in terms too narrow. And it is worth noting that life experiences prune and fertilize our functions, so that we can use mainstream psychology to understand how our lives are formed as well.

 

[Seteleechete]

Yes, my hope is that by recognizing the flaws I could work around them... I guess I can't allow fear get in the way of progress so to speak.

 

[nanook]

loosing objectivity=loosing superficiality=developing away from extroversion, discovering introversion.

the problem is a problem of transition.

you begin to apply your understanding to personal issues before your understanding is introverted, meaning before it is purely abstract understanding of the source of cognition. while it is still extroverted, behavioristic, descriptive and concrete it is not properly applicable to the individual case.

the transfer is an unavoidable challenge of developing your mind.

if it does not manifest through typology, it will manifest through DSM or through gender concepts or through whatever other concepts are available to you. your common sense understanding of reality is optimized for superficially getting along with a superficial world but your mind is bound to seek a deeper perspective on life and then you have to grow deeper concepts. typology is as deep as we make it.

 

[Cherry Cola]

It is like a virus at first, you have to let it run its course.

Remember that you categorized people before you knew about MBTI too, you probably just didn't do it as consciously and in such a sophisticated manner.

 

[Seteleechete]

Heh I have always shunned the use of concepts when describing, analysing and debating things... they always seem to narrow to properly express my thoughts even to myself... which is why I rarely learn anything beyond basic knowledge in a subject. Though this is the first time I can properly explain this phenomenon to myself in words.

 

[Seteleechete]

It is like a virus at first, you have to let it run its course.

Remember that you categorized people before you knew about MBTI too, you probably just didn't do it as consciously and in such a sophisticated manner.

Cherry the problem is that it is less sophisticated but easier to communicate to myself and others. And I am unsure it will be equally sophisticated when I learn the intricacies of the system... but as nanook said it is inevitable.

 

[nanook]

carl jung is pretty much just about finding a language to express subjective things. maybe read him and skip the populist typology sites that try to teach typology to extroverted masses.

 

[TBerg]

Cherry is on point and nanook offers good advice. Search for chapter ten of Jung's Psychological Types. You can read it for free and get the most profound insights there.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Heh I have always shunned the use of concepts when describing, analysing and debating things... they always seem to narrow to properly express my thoughts even to myself... which is why I rarely learn anything beyond basic knowledge in a subject. Though this is the first time I can properly explain this phenomenon to myself in words.

This is not a good approach, crystallized intelligence correlates with fluid, they help each other out. You can read this on wikipedia. If you want to be able to communicate complicated stuff efficiently you HAVE to learn the relevant terms and concepts, you have to master them so as to be able to efficiently chunk (google chunking) them.

 

[Seteleechete]

Hah I actually have that problem (inability to use chunking) but I guess that would be the natural result. But as far as I am concerned it still only becomes relevant for subjects I care about (like psychology) I am far to lazy to not use my current method for non interesting subjects. It is important for me to still understand other subjects just less important to communicate it to me and others.

 

[Jennywocky]

dooon't beeee afraaaaaaiddddd......
turrrrrnnnn to the daaaaark side.....
traaaap people in the cage of tyyyypeeesss.....
giiiive yourselfff overrrr toooo MBTIIIIIIIi....

we alll float dooowwwwnn heeeeere Seeetelleeeeeee......

 

[Analyzer]

It is like a virus at first, you have to let it run its course.

Remember that you categorized people before you knew about MBTI too, you probably just didn't do it as consciously and in such a sophisticated manner.

This is key right here.

MBTI/Typology/Jungian theory are just advanced ways of categorizing people. A lot more sophisticated and high level any than others I have found.

 

[OrLevitate]

Hello I just recently found out about the MBTI system and I can't help but feel that it is all a massive trap. Before I knew the system I always looked at people objectively based on thier personal traits and quirks, but ever since I found out about this system I always want to put people into an orderly designated place with this system. This is obviously a bad thing, the system has shown it flaws plenty of time to me in the short time I have known it. I fear that if I keep using it I will lose some of my objectivity, at the same time it is another analytical tool to be use, dismissing it's stupid.

Am I just being overly paranoid?

It's not a trap, but you're right to see the perils of it. Jung created it as a joke, it's a litmus test for conformity via groupthink. He's still laughing

 

[Seteleechete]

Actually I think I might be wrong in my thinking. I am starting to think that I do indeed communicate complex statements, I just prefer to use simple terms that are narrower and encompass less rather than broader complex terms. After all I don't have a problem with understanding and using complex statements just complex terms. All these psychological terms like "introvert" and "extrovert" represent a wider variety of statements than something like "reflective" and "outgoing". I remember now that last time I opened a psychology book I threw it away for over-complicating simple things.