Typology obsessiveness

[Artsu Tharaz]

Does anyone else have an obsession with typology?

If you don't, I guess you can still respond in terms of other obsessions you have, if you're an obsession prone person.

I've been obsessed with typology for years - almost for as long as I've known about typology at all.

I generally don't mind this, because I feel that I've been able to make original contributions to the field, and one day these contributions may be recognised, and I still have the capacity to uncover more, so basically I don't see it as having been a waste.

But I tried not long ago to distance myself from the field, and I found it very difficult to do so. I kept having to stop myself from typing everyone I came across on youtube, or viewing people in terms of the type that I had previously assigned them as. And though I sort of stopped thinking about it, instead I was thinking about something that's very related.

So after a few days of trying to distance myself from it, I caved. Now I'm carrying on with is as usual.

Has anyone else experienced the typology obsession, or do most people have it as a more moderate interest among other interests? Do you experience obsessiveness in general?

 

[onesteptwostep]

Yeah so you see there's this girl... ^^

Amen thats another thing. But yeah types can be pretty addicting. If youre bored I can fetch the types pictures and research relates stuff on the forum, you might find them interesting.

I pretty much laid off types after I got into gaming I think, though I laid off gaming too nowadays as well. If youre trying to get your dopamine fix from typology I'd recommend just like playing or listening to music, watching movies or just chatting up old friends. Do you write? Perhaps that could be another way to vent off your downtime.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

If youre trying to get your dopamine fix from typology I'd recommend just like playing or listening to music, watching movies or just chatting up old friends. Do you write? Perhaps that could be another way to vent off your downtime.

I don't think I get a dopamine fix from it? But maybe I do. I don't know neuroscience stuff that well.

I mean, I smoke to get a dopamine fix. I don't think typology is like smoking,

And I do listen to a lot of music, though not as much as I used to, and I have other ways of getting a dopamine fix. And I want to be interested in something if it is a higher level above typology, not just anything for the sake of switching hobby.

I write poetry sometimes, but usually when I go to write something I can't really think of anything.

I might get back into playing, and hopefully even writing, music (guitar mainly, keyboard too).

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

I wasn't really obsessed. I used to incorporate it into how I structured solutions to my life goals or how I described others and it wasn't very helpful just one of those biased mental shortcuts that are easy to adopt. As exploration of my personality improved, the understanding of myself has grown more sophisticated and precise beyond labels and adjectives of types. I'm now more capable of defining my inner states for keeping myself healthy so there is no useful guidance from mbti. Over time the whole system faded away from my idiolect.

I think it isn't much of a controversy to say that 90% of commercial typology is a scam, the major kind being a celebrity/charisma cult. The 10% who offer some workable insight on life get it from psychology/science or personal experience and choose to sell it under the framework.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

when I learned about mbti, it was only one out of a million of different sources from which I learned about stuff like behavior, personality, psychology, self-improvement etc. Probably because of that, I never really got obsessed with it. E.g. I never bought into the static view of personality, or the unconditional praise of all the various modes of personality. For example, I viewed the unhinged Ne-aspect of my thinking as something not conducive to the things I actually wanted to do, so I decided to become Ni instead.

 

[a_ghost_from_your_past]

Typology is quackery, better find something else to focus on.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Typology is quackery, better find something else to focus on.

It's a framework for interpreting various forms of patterns, mostly applied on the level of human psychology, but with other levels possible. If the framework has explanatory power, and predictive power, which I believe it does, then it is on the level of science. But I am aware of the limitations of science. Partly aware, at least. A type/type distribution is a way of describing a person much in the same way as various other descriptors describe a person. They are simplifications, but that's what we operate on much of the time. If the system can be used as a guiding principle for organising aspects of life in a way which matches certain levels of functioning, then why not use it?

Having said that, I don't know if I would be so concerned with the topic if there didn't seem to be a significant change undergoing lately regarding how the system is conceptualised. I would prefer other forms of explanation, or what have you, over it. I prefer Christianity, for example.

 

[a_ghost_from_your_past]

Typology is quackery, better find something else to focus on.

It's a framework for interpreting various forms of patterns, mostly applied on the level of human psychology, but with other levels possible. If the framework has explanatory power, and predictive power, which I believe it does, then it is on the level of science. But I am aware of the limitations of science. Partly aware, at least. A type/type distribution is a way of describing a person much in the same way as various other descriptors describe a person. They are simplifications, but that's what we operate on much of the time. If the system can be used as a guiding principle for organising aspects of life in a way which matches certain levels of functioning, then why not use it?

Having said that, I don't know if I would be so concerned with the topic if there didn't seem to be a significant change undergoing lately regarding how the system is conceptualised. I would prefer other forms of explanation, or what have you, over it. I prefer Christianity, for example.

Feng Shui is that as well. Don't let that discourage yourself.

If the framework has explanatory power, and predictive power, which I believe it does

A matter of belief, and every serious scientific study has disproven.

Typology is at a level compared to science as biological racism was one hundred years ago. Think about that.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Typology is quackery, better find something else to focus on.

I'll need something better than this if I'm to actually abandon the typology ship and dimiss it as fraudulent. If I'm serious about wanting to move onto something else, then I could just take you at your word, but I don't think I'm willing to do that.

What makes typology so poor in substance? Why is it not approaching the level of science? Why, basically, is it a waste of time?

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

For example, I've been able to observe my mental processes and see that the order of the 8 functions associated with INFJ manifests on an observable level in my mind. That shows how powerful typology is in being able to explain and predict mental processes, and even if it's somehow just a placebo and I've changed how my mind works to fit the model, then that showcases the power of typology to change how the mind functions.

 

[onesteptwostep]

If youre always thinking about mbti then its probable that youre intp or one of the NT or IN types, so I think you identifying with INFJ makes sense

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

If youre always thinking about mbti then its probable that youre intp or one of the NT or IN types, so I think you identifying with INFJ makes sense

Do INTPs get that obsessive with things?

I had thought that kind of single-mindedness was an attribute of introverted perception.

(though I am very likely wrong about that)

 

[Pizzabeak]

INTPs can get obsessive with things they're into (different hobbies, depending on their gene expression). Typology is easy to dismiss as "pseudoscience" because if you say it is, it makes you look smart or intelligent because you used logic. There's some indication that everything people do, even sub/unconsciously, is to bait and provoke a response out of someone to "help them learn", seeing as how "people just want the answers to their questions". There's basically no possible way anyone has thought this out more and clearer than I have. Call it what you want (jealousy, envy, anger, immaturity, pleading, whining, suffering; etc), but it just is. No amount of philosophy will get you anywhere besides a book. All the moral questions and answers are already in the religions, namely the Torah & Talmud. And life is about "balance". So anything else is really vanity or a hope to become recognized for one's work, which hypothetically makes them look more attractive if they do certain stuff. If you don't obsess over anything in life, it's basically a lose-lose situation so it's recommended you should. Ultimately, from what I've noticed people just obsess over looking at people. Then, they merely do the opposite, hoping it means they're smarter than you at last because they can "see what's missing".

 

[a_ghost_from_your_past]

Typology is quackery, better find something else to focus on.

I'll need something better than this if I'm to actually abandon the typology ship and dimiss it as fraudulent. If I'm serious about wanting to move onto something else, then I could just take you at your word, but I don't think I'm willing to do that.

What makes typology so poor in substance? Why is it not approaching the level of science? Why, basically, is it a waste of time?

The question you need to ask yourself is this:
why do you need typology to be true to make sense of the world around you and your place in it?

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

The question you need to ask yourself is this:
why do you need typology to be true to make sense of the world around you and your place in it?

Need it to be true? I don't need it to be true any more than I would need the laws of motion to be true if I were a physicist. Because I've put so much effort into understanding typology, and I've seen it manifesting all over the place, it would be a bit strange if it turned out to not be true. I don't think it even could be shown to be false at this point with what I've seen. So it's just something that I believe with good reason to be true.

I continue on with it because I am making progress with it, and I believe this theory has some kinds of major implications for society. It's also just out of habit and interest.

 

[QuickTwist]

Yeah, I was obsessed with it for quite a while. Now it's just a way to explain things in a way people can understand. I realize that every humans brain is roughly the same (at least in how it works) but the processes that get it to work can be analyzed as having different patters which is why typology is useful.

 

[a_ghost_from_your_past]

For the model to be approaching reality, you'd need at least a few more thousand molds.

 

[moody]

After 10 years, I still like it and will talk about it any time, but I'm not as obsessed about it as the first 7 years. Something like that, anyway. I'm mainly just tired of uninformed people who try to discredit typology based on a shallow understanding, or people who are in an obsessive phase and so have really shallow arguments but think that they know more so won't hear of anything else in a discussion. Recently someone told me that they liked to keep note of people's types too see how they change over time as they mature. There's kind of a lot of things wrong with that notion....but everything I said, they basically just used circular logic in response and you can't get through to people like that.

 

[moody]

Because I've put so much effort into understanding typology, and I've seen it manifesting all over the place, it would be a bit strange if it turned out to not be true. I don't think it even could be shown to be false at this point with what I've seen. So it's just something that I believe with good reason to be true.

Typology is elusive, and based more off observations of humans as opposed to any neurological findings that forms the basis of medical treatments. Too quickly people assume added information contridicts what we may already know as opposed to being a contribution. Because typology has to do with the way we extunalize and not so much why and how we do so, the only thing that probably is ever going to change about it's validity and usefulness is how we percieve it whenever we get aditional information on personality. Whether people think it's "right" or "wrong" is kind of besides the point. Having opinions just makes people feel important.

 

[a_ghost_from_your_past]

Escalation of commitment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[lightfire]

I was obsessed with mbti for a long time until maybe a month or 2 ago. When I discovered mbti in 2011, I was intrigued. I kept coming and going from the forum, but all of this was in the back of my head for years, and it just wasn't making sense. I thought it was a really cool how mbti defined thought processes in general. Then when I got to the forum, I think my intrigue went to confusion. A lot of talk about the functions specific to mbti types were brought up, and where the functions stood in the order of type and how that affected thought process (primary, auxiliary, etc). Then there was socionics too.

There is definitely more to the puzzle, and too many factors to consider if we really want to categorize on a deeper level. I don't think 16 types is enough to describe human thought processes. I don't think there's any good way to describe it actually. I kept seeing people changing types which further confused me. Like, "you guys I have an announcement, I have discovered that I am now a ASDF, here are my reasons why...". This all just seemed silly to me, we're all so focused on stuffing ourselves in a box, sometimes changing boxes too, but "goddammit I need to be in a box." I understand, humans naturally like to solve puzzles, piece information together, form a conclusion, have "us" and "them" mentality, even though we don't want to admit it. The fact that some people even change mbti types later on just might define the fluidity of human behavior, maybe we should all just become one with the grey area. :0

I think @Cognisant said it perfectly in another thread, its like choosing 1 of 4 Hogwarts houses. And even that was confusing because when I took the Hogwarts quiz a few times, I got Gryffindor and Slytherin (my patronus is a brown owl by the way isnt that cool).

 

[Rolling Cattle]

This place is weird. It's like going to astrology.com and finding out that everyone there hates astrology and talks about everything except astrology.

MBTI is just like astrology.

 

[CatGoddess]

Kind of but I disagree with saying they're "just like" each other. That gives off the wrong impression of why astrology is BS; it's not just that it isn't proper science. It's literally based in nothing that makes sense, whereas, while MBTI is not scientific by any means, it still has some basis in observable behavior.

i.e. "do you find yourself more interested in the abstract than the day-to-day?" --> congrats! you're an iNtuitive!

vs.

"were you born in July?" --> wow look surely the fact that your parents had sex in October means you're vivacious and theatrical!

 

[lightfire]

This place is weird. It's like going to astrology.com and finding out that everyone there hates astrology and talks about everything except astrology.

MBTI is just like astrology.

Its a forum, not everyone is going to be a fanboy of the topic on hand. I might be a nice troll. But in general yeah I agree with you. I was going to mention that in my post that I feel like a hypocrite trashing mbti on an mbti forum. However, its been like a month or two since I decided mbti is sort of like horoscopish. I actually edited out from my post something along the lines of: Before you guys tell me what I'm even doing on this forum, I think I have overstayed my welcome and I'm not relating to many of the topics here anymore. I kinda came back for the nostalgia to be honest, and maybe even closure. An end to a chapter of my obsession of typology (the name of this thread). Rip 2011-2019. I'll try not to be an mbti troll, though I do like interacting with people here.

 

[Rolling Cattle]

I was moreso toying with the irony of the perceived majority's view of typology. It's probably not that funny.

Currently, I don't think of MBTI at all anymore. But there was a time when it mattered quite a lot.

 

[a_ghost_from_your_past]

It's literally based in nothing that makes sense, whereas, while MBTI is not scientific by any means, it still has some basis in observable behavior.

The Myers-Briggs Personality Test Is Pretty Much Meaningless

Everybody relies on those four letters far more than they should

www.smithsonianmag.com

 

[CatGoddess]

Yeah I've seen those articles; people say the bandwagon is supporting mbti right now but it appears that the opposite is true. If you think that article counters what I said, you're misinterpreting. I never said that the test was reliable; I said that it has a basis in observable behavior. If you truthfully answer the questions, the results will reflect something about you; like, no shit if you say you despise parties, have no friends, and spend all your time at home (hmm actually I kind of just wrote an extreme caricature of myself, yikes) the test will say you're an introvert. Like, the correlation/cause-effect between the two things is clear; you prefer alone time, generally speaking, => introvert (never mind that that wasn't Jung's original idea of what an introvert was anyways).

Astrology? Unclear/nonexistent correlation - born while the Leo constellation was under the sky => gregarious and effusive doesn't make any sense. Again, I didn't say mbti was scientific or that the test was accurate; I just said that it's not the same as astrology. People like to conflate the two, which I resent because I never would've ascribed even a smidgen of validity to something like tarot, astrology, or healing crystals.

So, sure, the dichotomies that the tests provide are inaccurate. The traits themselves, however, are actual things that observably exist within human behavior (unlike, say, people born in June being sensitive). I mean, the big five is considered scientifically valid and there are studied correlations with mbti.

Finally, all those articles seem only to attack the test, not the system itself. The test creates dichotomies by which if you're "organized enough" you become a judger, if you're "quiet enough" you become an introvert, etc. That is not, however, how Jung's system actually works, so, regardless of whether or not Jungian psychology is or is not valid none of the articles arguing against it actually appear to address that point.


End note: Yes, I use jungian psychology to make predictions in day-to-day life, and, yes, some of my posts in other parts of the forum reflect that. However, I see it as a subjective system for organizing information, not as an objective truth that anybody should be able to observe precisely as I observe it; thus I'm not imposing it on anybody. (it would take a while to explain my views on Jungian psychology and I don't want to waste my time if nobody will care, so I guess PM me if you want to hear the long version?)

So given that 1. this is supposedly an "intp" (i.e. mbti-based) forum (closest I could get, intj forum is private after the mods apparently went batshit crazy), 2. I'm not, in fact, "obsessed" with categorizing people or applying Jungian theory anyways, and 3. I am already aware of the points expressed here, I'd really appreciate it if this thread's contents weren't reiterated every single time I made a passing reference to typology.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

mbti allows for the identification, acceptance, creation, and maintenance of an essence. In that regard it's the opposite of most other influences you can find in the world.

 

[a_ghost_from_your_past]

Yeah I've seen those articles; people say the bandwagon is supporting mbti right now but it appears that the opposite is true. If you think that article counters what I said, you're misinterpreting. I never said that the test was reliable; I said that it has a basis in observable behavior. If you truthfully answer the questions, the results will reflect something about you; like, no shit if you say you despise parties, have no friends, and spend all your time at home (hmm actually I kind of just wrote an extreme caricature of myself, yikes) the test will say you're an introvert. Like, the correlation/cause-effect between the two things is clear; you prefer alone time, generally speaking, => introvert (never mind that that wasn't Jung's original idea of what an introvert was anyways).

Astrology? Unclear/nonexistent correlation - born while the Leo constellation was under the sky => gregarious and effusive doesn't make any sense. Again, I didn't say mbti was scientific or that the test was accurate; I just said that it's not the same as astrology. People like to conflate the two, which I resent because I never would've ascribed even a smidgen of validity to something like tarot, astrology, or healing crystals.

So, sure, the dichotomies that the tests provide are inaccurate. The traits themselves, however, are actual things that observably exist within human behavior (unlike, say, people born in June being sensitive). I mean, the big five is considered scientifically valid and there are studied correlations with mbti.

View attachment 4166

Finally, all those articles seem only to attack the test, not the system itself. The test creates dichotomies by which if you're "organized enough" you become a judger, if you're "quiet enough" you become an introvert, etc. That is not, however, how Jung's system actually works, so, regardless of whether or not Jungian psychology is or is not valid none of the articles arguing against it actually appear to address that point.


End note: Yes, I use jungian psychology to make predictions in day-to-day life, and, yes, some of my posts in other parts of the forum reflect that. However, I see it as a subjective system for organizing information, not as an objective truth that anybody should be able to observe precisely as I observe it; thus I'm not imposing it on anybody. (it would take a while to explain my views on Jungian psychology and I don't want to waste my time if nobody will care, so I guess PM me if you want to hear the long version?)

So given that 1. this is supposedly an "intp" (i.e. mbti-based) forum (closest I could get, intj forum is private after the mods apparently went batshit crazy), 2. I'm not, in fact, "obsessed" with categorizing people or applying Jungian theory anyways, and 3. I am already aware of the points expressed here, I'd really appreciate it if this thread's contents weren't reiterated every single time I made a passing reference to typology.

I don't see anything particularly dishonest in my response, considering that in the scientific world MBTI is pretty fringe.
What you infer about my response seems to be again trying to brainwash INTP testing individuals into an easily manipulated cultish entity.

 

[CatGoddess]

Generally speaking, psychology is only partially scientific. That doesn't mean it can't be useful (social-skills related things, for instance, don't tend to consist of scientifically-gained knowledge. But that doesn't mean the knowledge can't be helpful). Also,

1. who is trying to manipulate INTP-testing individuals, then? To what end? I don't really see that happening...?
2. No, I don't have any particular interest in the formal test/description structure created by internet people who are, for the most part, talking out of their asses. I fail to see, though, why it is detrimental to use the terms of typology to organize personal observations that I use only in my own life and don't force on other people.

And I once again don't see how your reply actual responds to my post? Your first reply was to my statement that "It's literally based in nothing that makes sense, whereas, while MBTI is not scientific by any means, it still has some basis in observable behavior." I admitted that MBTI isn't scientific but said that it has more validity than astrology because one correlates behavior to behavior and the other tries to correlate stars to behavior. Your response was an article stating that MBTI is not scientific...? Uh, thanks, I already knew that; it doesn't address my point at all.

And now your second reply is repeating the same exact statement about MBTI not being scientific, in addition to adding some other words that don't seem to have any relation to what I said... I don't see anything in my post that could be construed as calling you dishonest or trying to brainwash anybody towards my point of view. So... I really have no idea what you're going on about.

 

[a_ghost_from_your_past]

So over what are we presumably fighting then?

 

[CatGoddess]

I don't know. You posted the article in response to my statement that MBTI is not on the same level of bullshit as astrology, even if neither is scientific. I don't see why you would place such a response there if you agreed with me, which suggests that the article is supposed to somehow debunk my response? Except... it doesn't...?

 

[a_ghost_from_your_past]

The thought that i agreed with you on this supposition didn't cross your mind?

 

[Pizzabeak]

Does anyone else have an obsession with typology?

If you don't, I guess you can still respond in terms of other obsessions you have, if you're an obsession prone person.

I've been obsessed with typology for years - almost for as long as I've known about typology at all.

I generally don't mind this, because I feel that I've been able to make original contributions to the field, and one day these contributions may be recognised, and I still have the capacity to uncover more, so basically I don't see it as having been a waste.

But I tried not long ago to distance myself from the field, and I found it very difficult to do so. I kept having to stop myself from typing everyone I came across on youtube, or viewing people in terms of the type that I had previously assigned them as. And though I sort of stopped thinking about it, instead I was thinking about something that's very related.

So after a few days of trying to distance myself from it, I caved. Now I'm carrying on with is as usual.

Has anyone else experienced the typology obsession, or do most people have it as a more moderate interest among other interests? Do you experience obsessiveness in general?

It's usually Ne that's described as having sporadic interests. I only got into it because I was a black sheep, or so it seemed. I noticed that life is about breathing air, yes, that includes talking. Read my sig, and read it again, everyday, so I don't have to repeat myself.
All aid in life comes from breathing air, because if you don't you die. When you eat food, to subsist, you breathe. Talking to people, or having conversations, requires breathing, as does writing, typing, and thinking about other people. Thinking can turn into listening after some time, according to testimony and techniques such as seeing how long you can hold your breath underwater.
When you exhale O becomes CO2.
When people look at you, they breathe more air and talk, so as to "take the words out of your mouth" or say what you were going to say.
This can cause the illusion of intelligence or being smart, or make the person look "woke" or "spiritually conscious" so as to not be "asleep", "like a sheep", or, not quite "enlightened", yet, something more similar to a person taking on the mantle of a person who is "awoke" or not "brainwashed" under "indoctrination", which suffering is all they aim to escape from, and they struggle to understand why things are the way they are, I can guarantee that.

Ni is Se and Si is Ne. Ti is Fe and Fi is Te. Si is about conserving the past (and no, the functions, dubbed "dominant", "auxiliary", "tertiary", and "inferior", plus "the shadow functions" are not of equal strength, and differentiate) and Ni then is about "the future", or really, just gauging possibility through the immediate, sensory environment, Se, operating in the now. Ne is also about the future because it utilizes the past and medias res, meaning "the now", determining outcomes.
I've also noticed how people act around other people. They exercise subtle motivation, which is all a plot for more red meat. They're good at making you "second guess" yourself, with military technology and strategy, employing ghettos and genocidal programs hoping to drive the suicide rate up. I've witnessed and been put through similar things on my own, although, as a wild card, I don't think assassins accounted for how much mental anguish a person can prepare for.
People can "change" a thing. I don't think they like reading anymore, and are looking for more advantageous ways of enjoying the world, or using things that could advance their career path. Music and cooking will always be in demand (until we turn into robots then don't need food or art). That's another way of saying we'll enter the VR superquantum computer and live forever. Studying space or astronomy isn't important since we don't get anything from it and there are so many problems here on Earth at home.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Typology is very random and arbitrary and basically you can find any ad hoc explanation to explain away any observation. Each person has his own demented theory and none are true. Usually typology just obfsucates all that stuff that is really happening.

Its way too rigid and has too many holes and little consistency. Takes too much time to learn and understand and then you cant really use to anything useful anyway.

Whatafuck do I care if you have a todo list or just wing it. Whatafuck do I care if you are sensitive feeler or psychopathic thinker. Makes little difference in the end.

No I dont think MBTI is totally a bad thing, but its not practical. More importantly all that stuff you learn from a type.... just toss it out the window, cause there is more important stuff you need to know about someone other than whether they are intuitive or sensors.

Just my two cents.

 

[Black Rose]

MBTI doesn't measure anything Jung talked about. That doesn't mean something is not there.

4 perceptions exist, two going out two going in.
4 judgments exist, two going out two going in.

That's the starting point.
The MBTI test doesn't tell much.