Typology Skeptics

[JimJambones]

I remember when I first stumbled upon personality theory because I was curious to know what it was that made me the person I am; how I think, behave, and why I'm interested in the things I'm interested in. It was during this time I stumbled upon the MBTI. The first time I read about it, I thought, "what a load of crap!" I was a complete skeptic, but little by little, as I learned more about MBTI, Socionics, and Jung, the more sense it made to me, but I continued be a skeptic all the while.

Jung believed in the supernatural, where I do not. His entire theory of personality type stemmed from his belief in the existence of a Collective Unconsciousness. I find it difficult to accept his theories because they are built upon faulty premises. That is not to say that there isn't some truth to it. He does manage to notice certain distinctions between individuals, and offers explanations as to why these distinctions exist. They just aren't all that plausible. So, while he may have been somewhat correct on some of his observations, they are correct for all the wrong reasons. When discovering truth it is important to be right for the right reasons.

What makes it difficult to reject typological systems such as MBTI is that they even have personalities that are skeptical of everything, including the system of typology that is used to classify them as a distinct personality. They are your NTs. So essentially, questioning the validity of it seems fruitless because you're only offering more proof of what type you are, hence, your skeptical nature only adds more validity to the system itself.

In short, while I am highly dubious of Jung's theories and personality classification systems, they are accurate in some vague sort of way that is hard to put my finger on, and while they are full of inconsistencies and contradictions, there isn't one weak spot that can bring any of the theories down in their entirety, so they continue to exist and perpetuate. It is entirely pointless to debate with people who believe in these systems, in much the same way as it is pointless to debate others in their belief of their god. So one has to determine whether to hang out at church so they have ample opportunity to pick up women, or just say the hell with it and go to the bar for a drink!

Obviously, typology has offered each of us something useful and has brought many of us to a better understanding of human nature(I won't dismiss it entirely because I have benefited from it in some way). I guess I'm just curious as to how many on this forum remain skeptical of the very typology we all have come together to meet within. What weaknesses in MBTI, socionics, Jung, have you found that they have all but made you sign out and never to return again?

 

[Jennywocky]

I consider the flaws to be more in the application of the ideas versus the ideas.

There is no "definitive" personality test, typically it's just someone taking a particular angle on how to separate the personality into component parts. The Enneagram, for example, has spiritual underpinings and a large emphasis on self-improvement built into the system (with the System of Integration vs Disintegration). The DISC system seems to focus on how we behave in the area of accomplishing goals AKA work styles.

Jung's functions (and then the MBTI using it as a basis) is nothing more but just one more person's stab at a way to dissect and understand personality. As such, it is assumed that the model will be non-comprehensive in some respects, it cannot accurately describe the personality from all angles. It also is good at describing what a person might prioritize, but cannot be used to limit their capabilities. Jung seems to have been most interested in perception and processing -- what we see and how we assess it.

One problem area: The assumption of the binary pair, and how people try to apply it in ways that exclude the opposite item. It's a fallacy to say that intuitive people (for example) cannot deal with sensory info or that feeling people cannot think rationally. All human beings have some capability in all of these areas; the system merely describes the priority placed on the scale.

Another flaw is the broadness of the traits. Just because you are a thinker, does that mean you are always fair? Does it mean you are good with inductive or deductive thought? How do one's subjective values factor in? Do you prioritize detachment in some situations and not others? Etc. The MBTI Step II and III are compensatory attempts to granulate the traits more finely and allow for diversity across a particular trait.

A third is equating things that are not necessarily equatable to a particular trait. For example, "intuition" is often equated with "imagination" or "Creativity," which is flawed. Intuition means a focus on the relationship between items versus the items themselves, which is more flexible and can contribute to creativity, etc., but it's not equitable. People of all types can apply their knowledge and skills in creative ways to accomplish their ends.

I think some of the outrage at MBTI fades when people stop viewing it as some kind of comprehensive system meant to dictate who we are. If we view it in light of its limitations and don't read more into it than warranted, then we are more liable to forgive its failings. Making the system more than it is, is one way to become horribly disappointed in it. It's a tool, little more. I don't see a point in throwing it out, I just see a need to understand its limitations, much as I would only expect so much from a hammer but use a different tool when doing something a hammer is bad at.

 

[Architect]

I agree with what JW says but would spin a different angle on it.

I puzzled over MBTI for similar reasons. It was so true, yet so wrong in so many ways seemingly. That would not necessarily indicate a bad theory, just that the theory was applied too broadly, i.e. incomplete. Therefore there is probably a part to our psyche not covered by the theory. If I could find the missing part then I'd (one hopes) have a complete set of theories for psyche. A cursory glance at modern psychology makes it obvious; we have two parts to our psyche, the Type (which seems to be hardcoded) and our personality (which seems to be malleable). Tying it to parts of the brain would indicate the Type goes in the cortex and the personality in the neocortex (the learning brain).

Once one understands these two parts to our psyche it all becomes clear. It indicates ...

• Type is always there but can be obscured or 'rechanneled' (as it were) via the personality
• Some parts of us ARE invariant
• Some parts of us ARE differentiated

In my observations I have yet to see parts of our psyche that are not covered by these two ideas.

 

[Coolydudey]

I am skeptic of your ability to type words correctly

on a serious note, I would basically agree with what archie said. His approach is constructivist and more useful for practical approaches. On a theoretical basis I would err on the way of saying it as follows:
Every person has a personality that can broadly be described by type; their type determines their basic functioning, while the more malleable and less fundamental parts of their personality are unique to themselves.

I find it seriously disappointing how type is so disregarded in psychology nowadays...

 

[Auburn]

I have seen so many like you, JimJambones, that I couldn't count.

People just as easily fall into the role of typology skeptics as those that fall into the role of believer, with only marginally more thought placed into it. I say 'role' because they are acting out a part; a part of a larger picture. It is curious to me how they don't see themselves as part of a dynamic. In reality, it is such a typical occurrence that I once made a chart about it:

Spoiler

Almost everyone fits somewhere along this diagram (if we drew a red dot for each one, there would be a concentration somewhere around here)
And I'd say this chart accounts for some 95% of people.

I don't think typology skeptics are properly addressing the matters typology brings to the table the majority of the time.

In the majority of cases, their skepticism is as profound as their understanding of typology itself, which generally doesn't go very far. They are usually very binary objections to flattened-down interpretations of Jung's concepts. When Jung put forth his initial analysis and deductions of cognitive functions he was far more meticulous and nuanced than people believe. But most people don't read past Chapter 10 of his book, if even that much. There *is* more information there, yet they complain about the lack thereof.

As a tangent, it's also a fallacy to suggest his "belief in the supernatural" automatically adds less validity to his idea on types. Furthermore, his belief in the supernatural itself is often misunderstood. It was not miraculous in the conventional sense, but simply about examining the occurrence of synchronized phenomenon that happen without any directly visible causality.

This is not to say each of these events itself is acausal, but that events not causally related to each other, still often hold meaningful significants in the manner that they synchronize. In his book "Synchronicity" Jung outlines both his awareness of the unconventional nature of his assertion of 'acausal synchronizations', the difficulties this idea faces against established scientific methods, and tries to devise experiments to confirm or deny his claims.

Jung was a person who understood very well the scientific method, the limitations of it as a tool the human psyche devises in order to comprehend reality, and where it is important but not the end-all of knowledge as humans can come to understand it. It was not out of ignorance that he chose to phrase things as he did, but out of a necessity due to the type of terrain he trotted --- to try to form a coherent understanding of Subjectivity, which inevitably necessitates a consideration for subjective matters.

This is why, the materials Jung brought to the table, one cannot even begin to properly explore unless one brings with them an intelligible comprehension of subjectivity & empiricism - and, despite this, one also needs a desire for keenness and clarity within a topic that is challenging to understand: the human psyche.

It is not that things cannot be known about the psyche, it is that most people do not engage the study of the psyche properly. They either expect it to be a sort of external endeavor --- simple, cut-and-dry, quantifiable, numbers and graphs --- or a non-topic altogether. Something moot because it does not fit these specifications.

But it is not impossible to keenly make judgments about subjective contents. That is to say, it is not impossible to properly discover truths about the internals of human psychology, by the internal delving-into that psychology. It is just not encouraged in scientific methods because it does have a lot of risks and one has to be especially aware of their tendency towards fallacies to do it properly. Rightly so, the scientific method ought to remove as much of that risk as it possibly can, as it is not relevant or useful for the discoveries it chooses to make.

But psychology doesn't have that luxury, yet we still need knowledge of psychology. So it has to be approached with as much rigidity and skepticism as a scientist does, but with a receptiveness to the ambiguous/subjective and a desire to bring clarity among the confusion.

==||==
​

There's a lot more I could say about typology itself (rather than how typology is taken by the public) but I don't wanna hijack your thread.

 

[QuickTwist]

A very good post Auburn. I don't really think MBTI is true in true but it has its strengths. In a way it is kind of like a discipline to learn like many other subjects. For example, you can study city architecture and know next to nothing about quantum mechanics. Same concept applies to any and all type tests (especially the pop psychology ones).

 

[EyeSeeCold]

One of my issues with MBTI/Keirsey is that it's presented as more certain than it is. There are tons of copycat MBTI assessments online besides MBTI itself, and all of these serve to satiate popular interest rather than becoming a more scientifically-refined theory of cognition, behavior or neuroscience.

Socionics is also presented in a definitive way, but the developers are/were generally more partial to Jung and to some extent were just exploring the logical conclusions of his ideas. Unlike MBTI, there is much more consistency, providing for a more reliable framework, and also a more "pure" Jungian approach. On the other hand, the consistency allows for all sorts of reasonable yet baseless conjecture.

Jung himself would probably reject both of these however, for a true Jungian approach would involve holistic psychoanalytic sessions in discovering type and he did not intend for his ideas to be systematized. But not only that, Jung considered that function attitudes(types) generally manifested in unhealthy people, whereas most of society was undifferentiated.

Overall I'm skeptical to the point of knowing that the tools we currently have are not perfect and should not be applied dogmatically in any field or manner, but I believe in the existence of some form of psychological type born and cultivated from innate properties.

 

[Red myst]

One of my issues with MBTI/Keirsey is that it's presented as more certain than it is. There are tons of copycat MBTI assessments online besides MBTI itself, and all of these serve to satiate popular interest rather than becoming a more scientifically-refined theory of cognition, behavior or neuroscience.

Socionics is also presented in a definitive way, but the developers are/were generally more partial to Jung and to some extent were just exploring the logical conclusions of his ideas. Unlike MBTI, there is much more consistency, providing for a more reliable framework, and also a more "pure" Jungian approach. On the other hand, the consistency allows for all sorts of reasonable yet baseless conjecture.

Jung himself would probably reject both of these however, for a true Jungian approach would involve holistic psychoanalytic sessions in discovering type and he did not intend for his ideas to be systematized. But not only that, Jung considered that function attitudes(types) generally manifested in unhealthy people, whereas most of society was undifferentiated.

Overall I'm skeptical to the point of knowing that the tools we currently have are not perfect and should not be applied dogmatically in any field or manner, but I believe in the existence of some form of psychological type born and cultivated from innate properties.

All I can say is WOW! I have developed this same attitude myself for the same observations! I have been filtering all that I have gathered from books, the net, and observed on this forum for a while and it has boiled down to exactly these same thoughts on the subject.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

All I can say is WOW! I have developed this same attitude myself for the same observations! I have been filtering all that I have gathered from books, the net, and observed on this forum for a while and it has boiled down to exactly these same thoughts on the subject.

Have you looked into Enneagram or Big Five? I forgot to mention them but I guess Jennywocky covered Enneagram.

For casual type discussion I prefer a combination of those two, it's much less ambiguous and confusing.

 

[Auburn]

@EyeSeeCold - Yeah. ^^; Mmmh, while I can respect the position of people like Jenny (who is content with some applicable merit to typology as a system(s) for quantifying and grouping personal qualities together in meaningful clusters, and letting it remain unresolved in the nitty-griddy) I have a thirst to get to the bottom of my desires and interests.

I suppose I personally don't like to just settle when it comes to knowledge. If I confront an unknown, I either face defeat and claim ignorance or dig deeper until it all congeals. I can't just stop digging and comfortably lie in my incomplete knowledge, using it casually here and there. I get a warm feeling in my gut, my cheeks flatten, and I become set on mastery.

Admittedly there's a level of frustration (err, too strong of a word ;p) I've experienced when people take something inconclusive and just decide to leap on one of the few predictable bandwagon-conclusions. Like:

1. the "omg, now i understand myself!" bandwagon
2. the "this is bs" bandwagon
3. the "well, don't take it too seriously, just use it casually because its kinda useful and practical" bandwagon

But people need to form some sense of certainty to things, so they patch up loose ends however seems most justifiable in their mind.

Yet I find that the people who have the most interesting things to say are constantly discovering new things, and they do so by not settling in a bandwagon. Though I suppose everyone's interests shift, change, or have various lifespans depending on the motivation behind them.

Some never intended to know typology to its full extent in the first place, as their prime motivation for entering the topic was to gain an understanding of themselves (which can be done without a typological approximator too). Their interest in typology was only secondary to the natural and typical process of self-discovery we all undergo early in life.

But if only they knew how much else could be discovered. How the journey doesn't end with self-discover, and indeed even what they present think of as self-discovery is but the beginning. I honestly think most people go their whole lives without truly knowing themselves.

In this respect, something like the MBTI or Enneagram do more harm than good, as they provide a good-enough patch-up solution, that dampens legitimate inquiry into themselves. Enneagram and MBTI are not realistic estimators of psychology, but people satiate their sense of personal curiosity without ever knowing the half of what they are.

 

[JimJambones]

Auburn,

Thank you for such a great response. I agree with you that often skeptics haven't fully given typology proper consideration before dismissing it. Often, I will scoff at things that do not fit my understanding of the world around me. I do not mean to sound dismissive or rude, but I've spent a considerable amount of time building such an understanding and seek to preserve that. Being a skeptic is often to "jump the gun" a little bit. I do this nearly automatically when someone tells me they saw a ghost or they had a dream of their past life. It is a defense mechanism for my knowledge. However, even if I take the time to further investigate out of curiosity, I find that most often, my initial assumptions have some truth to them that caused me to have them in the first place. So, initially, a skeptic may appear to over generalize, when in reality there is much more going on. Often, we do not feel the need to elaborate.

Now, here I'm afraid I may prove to be offensive, but often it isn't worth the time trying to elaborate. Let's take the Bible, for example. I don't have to read and understand the Bible to come to the conclusion that it wasn't written by God or what was said within the Bible is literally true. I only need to take my understanding of how the world operates and realize that the stories of the Bible do not fit in accordance to the laws of the universe. Hence, I don't give any authority to the Bible. Typology is slightly different, and I am not equating it with the Bible entirely because it is based on scientific principles, where the Bible is not, but many of the initial premises can be dismissed because it doesn't fit the laws of natural world as understood by most scientists.

Most scientists agree that Cartesian dualism doesn't exist. The mind and consciousness, even though we are far from understanding it, are a result of brain activity. My understanding of Jung is that he starts with consciousness first, as a phenomenon independent of the brain. He was most likely a dualist and his personality theories are based on that assumption. The whole concept of a higher self is dualism.

But like I've mentioned, I find value in the knowledge obtained through typology. I would like to further understand personality, but from the perspective of naturalism. I think that most of what Jung had to say about psychological types can be explained in a more concise manner, naturalistically.

I would like to elaborate further, as I see we speak two different languages , but I have to go to the dentist and they don't like it when I'm late.

 

[JimJambones]

I agree with what JW says but would spin a different angle on it.

I puzzled over MBTI for similar reasons. It was so true, yet so wrong in so many ways seemingly. That would not necessarily indicate a bad theory, just that the theory was applied too broadly, i.e. incomplete. Therefore there is probably a part to our psyche not covered by the theory. If I could find the missing part then I'd (one hopes) have a complete set of theories for psyche. A cursory glance at modern psychology makes it obvious; we have two parts to our psyche, the Type (which seems to be hardcoded) and our personality (which seems to be malleable). Tying it to parts of the brain would indicate the Type goes in the cortex and the personality in the neocortex (the learning brain).

Once one understands these two parts to our psyche it all becomes clear. It indicates ...

• Type is always there but can be obscured or 'rechanneled' (as it were) via the personality
• Some parts of us ARE invariant
• Some parts of us ARE differentiated

In my observations I have yet to see parts of our psyche that are not covered by these two ideas.

I agree with those observations. We definitely have a fixed component that is hardwired into our neurological system and then there is a component of that system that highly influenced by the environment and is the more adaptable aspects of our personality, which include the masks we wear in our social circles.

 

[JimJambones]

I consider the flaws to be more in the application of the ideas versus the ideas.

There is no "definitive" personality test, typically it's just someone taking a particular angle on how to separate the personality into component parts. The Enneagram, for example, has spiritual underpinings and a large emphasis on self-improvement built into the system (with the System of Integration vs Disintegration). The DISC system seems to focus on how we behave in the area of accomplishing goals AKA work styles.

Jung's functions (and then the MBTI using it as a basis) is nothing more but just one more person's stab at a way to dissect and understand personality. As such, it is assumed that the model will be non-comprehensive in some respects, it cannot accurately describe the personality from all angles. It also is good at describing what a person might prioritize, but cannot be used to limit their capabilities. Jung seems to have been most interested in perception and processing -- what we see and how we assess it.

One problem area: The assumption of the binary pair, and how people try to apply it in ways that exclude the opposite item. It's a fallacy to say that intuitive people (for example) cannot deal with sensory info or that feeling people cannot think rationally. All human beings have some capability in all of these areas; the system merely describes the priority placed on the scale.

Another flaw is the broadness of the traits. Just because you are a thinker, does that mean you are always fair? Does it mean you are good with inductive or deductive thought? How do one's subjective values factor in? Do you prioritize detachment in some situations and not others? Etc. The MBTI Step II and III are compensatory attempts to granulate the traits more finely and allow for diversity across a particular trait.

A third is equating things that are not necessarily equatable to a particular trait. For example, "intuition" is often equated with "imagination" or "Creativity," which is flawed. Intuition means a focus on the relationship between items versus the items themselves, which is more flexible and can contribute to creativity, etc., but it's not equitable. People of all types can apply their knowledge and skills in creative ways to accomplish their ends.

I think some of the outrage at MBTI fades when people stop viewing it as some kind of comprehensive system meant to dictate who we are. If we view it in light of its limitations and don't read more into it than warranted, then we are more liable to forgive its failings. Making the system more than it is, is one way to become horribly disappointed in it. It's a tool, little more. I don't see a point in throwing it out, I just see a need to understand its limitations, much as I would only expect so much from a hammer but use a different tool when doing something a hammer is bad at.

That's a good point about intuition. The trouble is, there really isn't a good definition of it within typology. It depends on the system one is using. Keirsey equates intuition with "thinking" abstractly. I find this is the most useful definition of intuition. Then there's Jung, and the MBTI and Socionics offshoots, which define intuition in two ways. The first is the extroverted intuitive, which is more inline with Keirsey. The extroverted intuitive will connect objects and ideas together to get a larger picture of the world around them. This seems more inline with your conception of intuition.

The introverted intuitive is much more difficult to describe and is the least measurable of all of the functions because it is supposedly more conceptual and symbolic than extroverted intuition. It is often described as hunches and insights, which are non-scientific in nature. This is currently where my thoughts rest, and my skepticism as well. I'm highly dubious of a theory of personality that includes a function that stems from a dualistic mind, which assumes that their connection between ideas and objects derive from the unconscious. The ramifications of such a notion are huge, but in short, it leads to the notion of a person whose ideas cannot be questioned or criticized, especially if those ideas stem from them "being themselves" . Introverted intuition is often interpreted as being able to have predictive values, but how is this any different than extroverted intuition? How are they objectively different?

 

[Auburn]

@JimJambones - *smiles* I'm not easily offended! (: ..and I do hope my words don't offend either, as that's not my intent. It's difficult sometimes to talk about these things without trespassing other's sensitivities, but all we can hope for is a receptiveness to learning and sharing with others. c.c

It is often about defense mechanisms, yes. And it's actually rare for humans to be purely motivated toward knowledge, as often knowledge is a means to another end such as security in themselves, security in landscape and worldview (a predictability of the world).

It is disorienting and unsafe to have loose ends and gaps in one's sense of reality, so a very natural and consequential result in human psychology is gap-filling.

It's curious that you're aware of this. o.o I wonder how this awareness affects (or doesn't affect) your decision making. How does it sit with your consciousness to know one may be deliberately oversimplifying reality and developing a skewed (yet conveniently quick) perspective of things? Does the practicality of this disposition override what might be seen as a negligible percent of accuracy-loss?

Most scientists agree that Cartesian dualism doesn't exist. The mind and consciousness, even though we are far from understanding it, are a result of brain activity. My understanding of Jung is that he starts with consciousness first, as a phenomenon independent of the brain. He was most likely a dualist and his personality theories are based on that assumption. The whole concept of a higher self is dualism.

"Most scientist agree that Catersian dualism doesn't exist." <-- plea to authority

"My understanding of Jung is that he starts with consciousness first, as a phenomenon independent of the brain" <-- this is actually incorrect.*

"He was most likely a dualist..." <-- taking a guess at his philosophy, based on the most closely approximated concept you're already familiar with(?)

"..and his personality theories are based on that assumption" <-- then, from that unfounded guess, inferring the rest of his theories' (in)validity

Just an example of what I see. I think one thing I generally dislike about skeptics is how easily and readily they come to view themselves as more logical or rational -- and often boast an ego from this - when they can be among the most irrational and also no more sensible or less prone to fallacy than what they criticize.

* - Jung, so far as I know, considered the psychological experience to be entirely natural, yet this to him did not make void all of the experiences that came from it. This was related to his views differing from modern Western philosophy. His view of psychology as natural or supernatural is, to me, best exemplified in the following passage from his book "Psychology and Alchemy" [par. 8-10]:

The Western attitude, with its emphasis on the object, tends to fix the ideal - Christ - in its outward aspects and thus rob it of its mysterious relation to the inner man. It is this prejudice, for instance, which impels the Protestant interpreters of the Bible to interpret ἐντὸς ὑμῶν (referring to the Kingdom of God) as "among you" instead of "within you". I do not mean to say anything about the validity of the Western attitude: we are sufficiently convinced of its rightness. But if we try to come to a real understanding of Eastern man - as the psychologist must - we find it hard to rid ourselves of certain misgivings. Anyone who can square it with his conscience is free to decide this question as he pleases, though he may be unconsciously setting himself up as an arbiter mundi. I for my part prefer the precious gift of doubt, for the reason that it does not violate the virginity of things beyond our ken.

Christ the ideal took upon himself the sins of the world. But if the ideal is wholly outside then the sins of the individual are also outside, and consequently he is more of a fragment than ever, since superficial misunderstanding conveniently enables him, quite literally, to "cast his sins upon Christ" and thus to evade his deepest responsibilities - which is contrary to the spirit of Christianity. Such formalism and laxity were not only one of the prime causes of the Reformation, they are also present within the body of Protestantism. If the supreme value (Christ) and the supreme negation (sin) are outside, then the soul is void: its highest and lowest are missing. The Eastern attitude (more particularly the Indian) is the other way about: everything, highest and lowest, is in the (transcendental) Subject. Accordingly, the significance of the Atman, the Self, is heightened beyond all bounds. But with Western man the value of the self sink to zero. Hence the universal depreciation of the soul in the West. Whoever speaks of the reality of the soul or psyche is accused of "psychologism". Psychology is spoken of as if it were "only" psychology and nothing else. This notion that there can be psychic factors which correspond to divine figures is regarded as a devaluation of the latter. It smacks of blashphemy to think that a religious experience is a psychic process; for, so it is argued, a religious experience "is not only psychological". Anything psychic is only Nature and therefore, people think, nothing religious can come out of it. At the same time such critics never hesitate to derive all religions - with the exception of their own - from the nature of the psyche. It is a telling fact that two theological reviews of my book Psychology and Religion - one of them Catholic, the other Protestant - assiduously overlooked my demonstration of the psychic origin of religious phenomena.

Faced with this situation, we must really ask: How do we know so much about the psyche that we can say "only" psychic? For this is how Western man, whose soul is evidently "of little worth", speaks and thinks. If much were in his soul he would speak of it with reverence. But since he does not do so we can only conclude that there is nothing of value in it. Not that this is necessarily so always and everywhere, but only with people who put nothing into their souls and have "all God outside."

So you see, the way in which Jung approached religion/Bible was as a psychological phenomenon. He psychoanalyzed figures such as Christ to understand what they represented, psychologically, to mankind. Simply because it was not real in the most literal sense did not mean it was void of value/insight to him. All phenomena have a causality than can be grasped, and how much more something as prevalent and obvious as religion, which has dominated aeons of our history and humanity even when spread across all sides of the globe. To discount religion altogether as simply a hoax without turning a second glance to it or to deeply understanding its underlying causality would be an incredible ignorance.

Furthermore, Jung understood spirituality as being essentially the process of tapping into one's unconscious. It would be typical for a Western-minded thinker to think that Jung meant or believed in some extra-bodily essence, as that's precisely how the Western mind perceives spirituality. When in reality spirituality is an internal phenomenon. Which, as he noted, is more obvious to the Eastern man and not at the expense of its value to the individual.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

@EyeSeeCold - Yeah. ^^; Mmmh, while I can respect the position of people like Jenny (who is content with some applicable merit to typology as a system(s) for quantifying and grouping personal qualities together in meaningful clusters, and letting it remain unresolved in the nitty-griddy) I have a thirst to get to the bottom of my desires and interests.

I suppose I personally don't like to just settle when it comes to knowledge. If I confront an unknown, I either face defeat and claim ignorance or dig deeper until it all congeals. I can't just stop digging and comfortably lie in my incomplete knowledge, using it casually here and there. I get a warm feeling in my gut, my cheeks flatten, and I become set on mastery.

Admittedly there's a level of frustration (err, too strong of a word ;p) I've experienced when people take something inconclusive and just decide to leap on one of the few predictable bandwagon-conclusions. Like:

1. the "omg, now i understand myself!" bandwagon
2. the "this is bs" bandwagon
3. the "well, don't take it too seriously, just use it casually because its kinda useful and practical" bandwagon

But people need to form some sense of certainty to things, so they patch up loose ends however seems most justifiable in their mind.

Yet I find that the people who have the most interesting things to say are constantly discovering new things, and they do so by not settling in a bandwagon. Though I suppose everyone's interests shift, change, or have various lifespans depending on the motivation behind them.

Some never intended to know typology to its full extent in the first place, as their prime motivation for entering the topic was to gain an understanding of themselves (which can be done without a typological approximator too). Their interest in typology was only secondary to the natural and typical process of self-discovery we all undergo early in life.

But if only they knew how much else could be discovered. How the journey doesn't end with self-discover, and indeed even what they present think of as self-discovery is but the beginning. I honestly think most people go their whole lives without truly knowing themselves.

Exactly, it takes a certain type of person to establish and advance such studies. I think you've clearly shown yourself to be among those most suitable. It would be great if everyone had the same drive and diligence for (Jungian) typology to improve the current state of affairs, but if they did then there wouldn't be much diversity of personality.

Personally although typology infinitely fascinates me, I'm pretty sure computer technology is where I ultimately want to be.

In this respect, something like the MBTI or Enneagram do more harm than good, as they provide a good-enough patch-up solution, that dampens legitimate inquiry into themselves. Enneagram and MBTI are not realistic estimators of psychology, but people satiate their sense of personal curiosity without ever knowing the half of what they are.

Well people are always going to take things casually, it happens for any field of culture. In my opinion, Enneagram+Big Five are just more fulfilling and conclusive to that end.

 

[JimJambones]

@JimJambones - *smiles* I'm not easily offended! (: ..and I do hope my words don't offend either, as that's not my intent. It's difficult sometimes to talk about these things without trespassing other's sensitivities, but all we can hope for is a receptiveness to learning and sharing with others. c.c

Absolutely, by all means.

It's curious that you're aware of this. o.o I wonder how this awareness affects (or doesn't affect) your decision making. How does it sit with your consciousness to know one may be deliberately oversimplifying reality and developing a skewed (yet conveniently quick) perspective of things? Does the practicality of this disposition override what might be seen as a negligible percent of accuracy-loss?

I am only aware that I am human and can make mistakes as anyone else can.

"Most scientist agree that Catersian dualism doesn't exist." <-- plea to authority

Authority in itself doesn't make something true. It is how the truth is discerned which is more important. Scientific research consistently demonstrates that consciousness stems from neurological activity within neural tissue. If there is no brain, there is no mind or consciousness.

"My understanding of Jung is that he starts with consciousness first, as a phenomenon independent of the brain" <-- this is actually incorrect.*

Only partly incorrect. Jung believed that an individual's unconscious derived from two sources: the personal unconscious and the collective unconscious. The collective unconscious exists independently from each individual as each inherits the collective unconscious as part of their overall unconsciousness, suggesting that the collective unconscious exists independent of the brain.

"He was most likely a dualist..." <-- taking a guess at his philosophy, based on the most closely approximated concept you're already familiar with(?)

"..and his personality theories are based on that assumption" <-- then, from that unfounded guess, inferring the rest of his theories' (in)validity

Okay, this was unfair of me to label Jung as a dualist as I have no direct evidence for this, but his theory of the collective unconscious was dualistic in nature, was it not?

Just an example of what I see. I think one thing I generally dislike about skeptics is how easily and readily they come to view themselves as more logical or rational -- and often boast an ego from this - when they can be among the most irrational and also no more sensible or less prone to fallacy than what they criticize.

I think a good skeptic is willing to admit when they made a mistake and will recognize that even the mental tools we use to aid in unraveling the truth around us has its limits. I find many skeptics to be some of the most open minded people I know. They are forever on a quest toward truth and constantly questioning popular notions of truth. I do agree that arrogant skeptics can be a nightmare.

I wish I could've discussed some of the other points in your reply, and maybe I will do so in the near future if I remember to come back to them later.

 

[Auburn]

I think I see what you're saying now.

Only partly incorrect. Jung believed that an individual's unconscious derived from two sources: the personal unconscious and the collective unconscious.

This part does leave a little to question, yes. I think the way I've always interpreted it is that humanity shares a collective unconscious in the same way we all share 99% of our DNA. Suppose for example, that the reason we all share and can encounter certain unconscious archetypes (like a 'shadow', a sense of a 'mother' figure, etc) is because each of us has the same basic lower-brain which influences us unconsciously in the same way.

But yes, admittedly Jung never fully closed off to the possibility of the supernatural, though from what I've read he didn't assert that the collective unconscious was definitely supernatural as much as he claimed ignorance as to how the phenomenon he saw was emerging.

(Thank you so much for your time.)