Type, behavior

[Architect]

Something people on forums like this frequently say is you can't Type a person from their behavior. The problem is that if you don't then you're out of the realm of Type.

Follows is a video on this topic. They're talking about a specific and common forum incident, all that's important is the first minute.

VJ

Note VJ is a MBTI professional who has studied with Linda Behrens and is a colleague of Dario Nardi. She's also extensively worked with John Beebe so is an expert in the field.

The main point is that behavior is the only determinant of type, not "traits", ideas, feelings etc. But in an individual, their past behavior is the best guidance for type.

"The whole concept of Type isn't trait based, it's all about behavior ..."

The rest of the video isn't worth much, but the point is that Type manifests in behavior. All qualia associated with Type is not observable or communicable, so is out of the picture.

 

[scenefinale]

The main point is that behavior is the only determinant of type, not "traits", ideas, feelings etc. But in an individual, their past behavior is the best guidance for type.

"The whole concept of Type isn't trait based, it's all about behavior ..."

Behavior is an output. When studying a system, there is more to it than just its output.

All qualia associated with Type is not observable or communicable, so is out of the picture.

That's like saying all there is to debugging a computer program is its output on the screen.

It's that kind of thinking that is largely responsible for holding the field back.

 

[Cherry Cola]

God someone shoot this guy ^

 

[scenefinale]

God someone shoot this guy ^

So it's a requirement of the forum that all Architect's opinions are unanimously accepted and any dissent makes me look crazy?

The point I made is perfectly logical. We can discuss these things intelligently, I am confident.

But mistakes are beautiful, so I don't mind making them. We wouldn't be here if it weren't for "mistakes" in copying DNA. People have pointed out when I am wrong and I'm thankful when they do. Mistakes are a huge part of the learning process. We are helping each other here, no need to have feelings hurt.

 

[Cherry Cola]

All you do is tear down, you never build shit. It's not difficult or smart or enlightened to do so. Bronto had you pegged before.

 

[Brontosaurie]

trait psychology is excessively behavioristic in the aspects that are relevant here (although its semantic essentialism sometimes contradicts behaviorism). what MBTI does is try and go beyond that shallow, tautological and merely collative paradigm and posit a systematic model that allows us to discuss motivation and temperament more coherently, so that meaningful statements can be made. type can be assessed via observation of behavior, but type is not just a summary of behavior.

not sure i understand the angle you're coming from. i agree fully that a trait-based understanding of MBTI is incorrect or at least insufficient, however. it's about the dynamic interplay of mental drives. the problem with thinking chiefly in terms of behavior lies in the arbitrary operationalization of variables that correspond to functions, ignoring a bunch of underlying biases and factors etc. i just think behavior as basis seems very clumsy.

 

[scenefinale]

In his book On Intelligence, Jeff Hawkins describes why the field of AI failed miserably for a period of over 25 years. He says:

"The biggest mistake is the belief that intelligence is defined by intelligent behavior."

The AI field was filled (and still is, if you ask me) with people only studying intelligent behavior without first trying to understand the inner workings and mechanisms of the brain.

This is also true of personality (please note, I am not necessarily equating personality and intelligence here.) You have to understand the low level and get into the neuroscience. Behavior is not everything. It is a crucial part, yes, but not the "only" part. You have to understand the mechanisms and structures which are responsible for these behaviors.

 

[Brontosaurie]

now if, on the other hand, we include mental behavior aswell, and also consider the one overarching "behavior" of a person's life (as must be done in order to capture the holistic nature of type), then the term becomes confusing and/or redundant.

 

[TBerg]

Architect was right about substance but scenefinale uses a word definition as a strawman against Architect. Scenefinale was thereby being a foppish pedant, mistaking cleverness for wisdom.

 

[Idunno]

But... our behaviors change. When entering a new environment, we naturally adapt, in our own way. Behavior before may not be the same behavior after. Does that mean our type has changed? no.

For MBTI to have any inherent value it must be something more than just behavior. It is the mental, cognitive processes that shape our behavior no?

I might be misinterpreting the OP here but im really confused because Architect posts on the analysis of cognitive functions, and now this post on MBTI being all about behavior

 

[Brontosaurie]

Architect was right about substance but scenefinale uses a word definition as a strawman against Architect. Scenefinale was thereby being a foppish pedant, mistaking cleverness for wisdom.

i'd be thankful if you could elucidate on where (if) my objections depend on strawmanning too.

 

[TBerg]

i'd be thankful if you could elucidate on where (if) my objections depend on strawmanning too.

The thing about Architect's advice is that his unadvised elements of a personality and the advised elements of the personality overlap in semantic meaning. Behavior can encompass or can be encompassed by feelings, traits, and even perhaps ideas. That means you have to ask what those terms mean operationally. His post is in response to MBTI forum messages, which means that you have to find the meaning of the terminology in how it is used in forums. Traits would be bullshit like how nice someone is, feelings would be bullshit like how depressed someone is, and ideas would be bullshit like how patriotic someone is. You see how these things could be construed in certain ways, but the point of the word behavior is to put the typist in a more serious mode of observation. What the person does is the most important thing. Those other terms are riper for abuse. The question to ask during the development of a person is where lie their struggles and where lie their triumphs. That makes it much clearer.

 

[Architect]

The thing about Architect's advice is that his unadvised elements of a personality and the advised elements of the personality overlap in semantic meaning. Behavior can encompass or can be encompassed by feelings, traits, and even perhaps ideas.

Yes exactly. I understand it by way of something I know and use well, hidden variable theory. Hidden Markov Models, if you're familiar with those. There's an observed phenomenon, behavior in this example, and we're trying to discern the hidden variables that give rise to those observed behaviors. There are many factors contributing to behavior, it's the job of our analysis to get through the cofactors.

A heuristic and imprecise practice in the case of MBTI, but the best we have.

But... our behaviors change.

Some do, some don't generally. My humor has always been of the gross slapstick variety. I deliver subtle and caustic commentary that others find hysterical, but personally a good old banana peel is the thing that will give me a belly laugh. I've come to understand that deviant physical humor isn't unusual with INTP's. It's the Se/7th position trickster.

Million other examples ... but aren't there constants in your behavior? Or when behavior changes, is it really different or just adapting differently to different situations, but with similar results?

For MBTI to have any inherent value it must be something more than just behavior.

Well if a theory could predict behavior precisely that would be enough. Hell every police department in the world would pay a fortune for it.

I might be misinterpreting the OP here but im really confused because Architect posts on the analysis of cognitive functions, and now this post on MBTI being all about behavior

All I'm discussing here is typing. MBTI is about the cog functions which give rise to behavior, and it's the behavior in how we type ourselves and others predominantly.

Behavior is an output. When studying a system, there is more to it than just its output.

Agree, that's what I said above. MBTI is about the system of cognitive functions (whatever they really are which we don't know yet). I'm simply saying here that when we Type all we have to go on is behavior.

 

[ZenRaiden]

What behaviour are we talking about exactly. I have seen people typing others simply based on facial expression which I personally think is a horrible habit. However I can see the idea of behaviour easy to apply when trying to type Introversion vs Extroversion.

I think intuitives have a different approach to problem solving from sensors, but some jobs just dont require that much intuition.

As for Feeling and Thinking it can be pretty obvious when dealing with people. In group settings the T and F are easiest to spot. Aldough it takes time before one can be certain.

Judging and Percieving is also sometimes hard to tell from just behaviour, but usually those types that are more intuitive or percieving can be easiest to tell apart.

 

[Architect]

What behaviour are we talking about exactly.

There's many of course. You start with a CF and derive likely behaviors for observing that CF. Or you can take a generalized behavior and see where in the psyche are the functions to support it.

tl;dr

Spoiler

Example, INTP's and team sports, would an INTP be interested in team sports? The behaviors here are playing, general participation, watching etc. The first obvious point is that sports are heavy with Se and Si. Se is in the 7th position for INTP's - the trickster - so an INTP might like team sports in some deviant way for example. But it would take a high level Se user to be one who actually played consistently, like a professional player. A professional sports player would be unlikely to be an INTP, because Se and Si are so low down on the stack, they'd be outclassed by the high Se/Si users.

Now take the reverse, an INTP is primarily Ti & Ne, which is a love for abstraction and theory. Where in sports is this? There's some complexity, I guess, maybe in the team play and stats, but it's fairly low level at that. Further Ti is the most independence desiring of the CF's, and there's little independence in team sports.

So taking it together it would seem to be very unlikely that INTP's be interested in team sports, at best perhaps peripherally. And in practice when you look at sports teams you see lots and lots of Si and Se dominants and auxiliaries. Now could there be an actual bona-fide INTP who is heavy into team sports? Yes, but it would be a rarity, and I'd be interested to hear what exactly it is about that activity the individual finds fulfilling.

Now, this is a long post, but here's the rub. We have personalities which is confounding. So there could be overriding learned personality behaviors which obscure the underlying type. From this perspective it could be that an INTP loved sports for purely personal reasons; memories from when a kid, it got them away from a bad situation at home, anything.

tl;dr

Spoiler

For example, much of my life I've been an outdoorsy, hiking person. It was great, I'd dream about being in some lonely wild place and did it frequently. Sailing, mountain hiking etc. Then I got an INTP kid who hated it. We'd fight over going out for a hike. This made me wonder, my INTP son absolutely hates it, why do I like it so much? Do I actually like it so much? With long self examination what I realized was that, as an intuitive growing up in a all S family, going for a walk was the only way I could get away and think. But when I got right down to it, actually hiking was rather annoying. I hated driving to these places, the dirt, the sameness of it all and so forth. But now I have a quiet home filled with intuitives, do I really still enjoy hiking that much? Turned out the answer was no, I stopped going for hikes and have been happier with staying home getting something more interesting down. When I need time to think I just put on a movie or something.

So, admittedly it's complex because we have a personality in addition to a type. But, all things being equal, I believe Type is a motivation that won't change or go away (and we have other motivations) which results generally in common behaviors.

 

[Jennywocky]

^^ In general the way you couch your ideas here reinforce the idea that we're talking tendencies/strong leanings, not absolutes. (I know you know that, but some others might not based on the typical pushback you get, so I'm just summarizing it.)

So with your sports example, you give a decent explanation why it would be very unlikely for an INTP to excel enough to professionally play a team sport. Of course, what complicates matters is that humans are extremely adaptable/versatile, even when we have strongly rooted tendencies. And some of us are more malleable than others, again for multiple reasons. So perhaps an INTP would develop an interest in participating in team sports for some reason based on upbringing and not-as-direct motives.

But as you note it's still pretty likely they wouldn't be able to operate on the same level as those for whom it's a primary life focus. The mind tends to organize under some overarcing, guiding principles, and even these learned behaviors are organized under that umbrella; and this can determine the ultimate success of those behaviors. (So in this case "team sports" might not be pursued for its own sake but rather for an ulterior unrealized motive, hence leaving one at a disadvantage to those for whom it is actually a priority and thus a large time and energy investment. There's a reason why specialists do better in their field of focus than a generalist typically might.)

I think this is also the "black box" issue with typing folks. As you note, only behavior is observable (and behavior itself can stem from a multiplicity of sources), so we're forced to resort to probabilities and patterns that might explain the part of the system that we cannot directly observe. So when we draw conclusions, it's based on the assumption that we're talking tendencies and underlying cohesive patterns, versus absolutes.

Anyway...

...I found the hiking example enlightening, especially with my interest in it that I pursue far less than I think I should want to. (Example: Saturday morning: "I want to go hiking." Late Saturday afternoon: "Dammit, I wanted to go hiking, but I spent my time doing <this>, I better get out while there is still sunlight!" and then a 1-2 hour hike versus an all-day one. IOW, I thought I had one priority; but in the end I guess my underlying priorities were different after all.)

But now you've made me think about it myself. For me, hiking ties into the Ne/Si cog pair -- the Ne from exploring new pathways and seeing new things that others might not see ("world of wonder," I feel the same when I consider new countries to visit or interstellar travel), and Si because in my childhood getting out of my crazy dysfunctional house was a priority, so I associate it with fond memories and good feels. Wandering around the rural countryside was the only place in my childhood where I was FREE. The world was mine, I didn't have to deal with crazy people, I could go where I want and do what I wanted and it didn't matter who I was or how I looked or what anyone else wanted to impose on me because they weren't there. I was "pure exploration / pure thought" as I interacted with the world. But I'm kind of a prissy hiker; I don't mind getting soaked, scratched up/bloody, or taking a few bruises; but I don't like dirt or mud and do my best not to get muddy.

I think nowadays when I do hike, I enjoy it most when (1) I'm on a new trail and (2) I'm winging it and have to use my thinking skills to navigate / figure out how to get around obstacles. (It's kind of a less intensive form of rock climbing, an outdoor pursuit that I think can be directly positive for ITPs and seems to attract ISTPs with interest in the outdoors -- your Ti is anchored specifically into the world around you and you're making tiny adjustments every second to stay on course.) So I still do it; but I have to make a conscious committment to do so. i could be a very good hiker and climber if I invested the time, but apparently since my home is a "safe" undisturbed place nowadays, I end up doing things I want to do more there.

 

[Architect]

^^JW

Thank you for the well stated reply. Yes precisely, I get tired of writing and people get tired of reading, so I don't make clear exactly my thoughts and repeat the backdrop of them. Which is I'm not an absolutist, especially with Type. Every behavior you could mention with a type has an associated Gaussian curve to it. Which means that for the sports example, somewhere in the world there is probably an INTP who does like sports (maybe even on this board ...) But I'd contend there aren't many, and I'd bet that the reason they like sports is for some specific personality reason, perhaps one worth investigating. Is there an activity they'd enjoy more than sports for example?

On hiking, you hit it on the head. We have an INTP friend who is a long distance touring cyclist. Same thing. Freedom, exploring (Ne), memories (Si) - it's all the same for me too. I even like getting dirty like when hiking in the rain, it's a challenge. But that's in the context of knowing I'll be warm and clean in my bed that night too. I hate sleeping overnight and not getting a shower which means I'm not a real hiker.

I like to try experiments. With the hiking, I went on a six month moratorium. No hikes, how does it feel? It was great not wasting all that time, but then a "pressure" built up in my head that hiking used to alleviate (a little at least, not a lot). But when I needed to clear the head of the stuff I was working on I found that watching movies helped - a lot. Relaxed me, I felt refreshed afterwards and I didn't have to go anywhere. Guess what, it was ... escapism.* I came to realize I was hiking and traveling to see new areas (Ne/Si like you say) and escape, and it turns out that a movie does the same thing. Only better, and I don't have to actually go through with the traveling which I frankly hate.

Beautiful example of a motivation that can manifest in two different behaviors, which muddles the issue as I say**. I watch a movie every night now and feel like a new person before going to bed. All because I ditched a habit of going for walks when I was a kid to escape my family.

* Yesterday was rather shitty due to an ISFJ colleague who choose irrational duty over rational decision making. Anyhow a nice black and white crime movie saved me at the end of the day.

** But notice that for me, the hiking and travel is a poor substitute for movies (reading is similar, but I've been staring at text all day so don't want that in the evening).

 

[nanook]

riding my bike gives me the feeling that i am acting spontaneously without external reference point, meaning for once i am neither researching a subject, nor responding to someone's thoughts, nor consuming what other people have created. riding the bike is boring compared to painting a picture, but i have lost the ability to go so deep into creativity. a compromise between exploring the world and painting is sitting down somewhere, picking up some some hay/straw and forming a simple archetype from it, like an angel. another compromise is skateboarding, it's autonomous and creative, if only i could do it. but i pretty much suck at everything beyond pushing from A to B. skateboarding street tricks require a lot of speed, like catching a ball, except you need to combine that speed with precise muscle strength. i have neither.

 

[nanook]

i agree with the general idea, of course type creates behavior in principle. and peoples thoughts about why they do something are often inaccurate, they might be rationalisations of feelings or intuitions or sensations, making the person appear rational. but typing behavior requires a lot of experience to make up for what information you don't take into account, when you don't ask the person about why they think they act a certain way.

for example the Si in my life is more obvious than the Ne, because i can not act on Ne allot due to how Fi judges the circumstances and fears the consequences.

until you have experience with how diligent Si dominant individuals are, to become aware of how my Si is crippled in comparison, through my Ne desires that draw my attention away from improving my Si routines, you couldn't tell that i am not even Si dominant.

and it might be rather hard to find a solid behavior that represents my Fi.

introverted judgement is particularly far removed from what could be called behavior. it's more evident in the absence of expected behavior. unless you count the arguments that someone give as behavior.

so i find that what people say when they say whatever they want to say is more informing about their cognition than what they can report factually about how they behave in life, like what sort of a job they have, etc.

for example i may totally tell you that i grew up on skateboards and i love it. no word about my inability to stand a kick flip. but when you get me to talk about sport in general you will quickly realize that i have many negative feelings about the requirement and challenge to adapt to physical realities. i want to fly above it all, i want life to be a dream.

 

[Black Rose]

the perceiving function doesn't show behavior more likely a lack of action without the judging function. it might be behavior of perception is getting to what it needs on to move to the next perception. Ni gets its perception from within Ne from without. it is listening rather than reasoning. do different types of listening show different behaviors? there are four ways to listen two introverted, two extroverted. what are they listening to?