Why so interested in typology?

[Coolydudey]

I've noticed that NT types, and above all INTPs, have much more of an interest in typology than others.

I myself have pinned it down to the theoretical nature of typology. It's not like the rest of psychology "ooh look, the statistics say people who are crap at things think they are better than they are" (this won a Nobel prize, I'm not criticising, just getting a point across). Typology provides a realm of abstract study that has so many different applications and so many ideas embedded in it. It's the realm of the INTP, an overarching system that in some ways works so well, but in others has flaws which provide interesting points for debate.

What makes this possible is the fact that we all communicate. We've met people, and we don't need any training or schooling to start discussing psychology. It's accessible to anyone.

So, on the other hand, should pasychology place a little more emphasis on such theoretical studies? It's hardly certain that not only the psychological community, but also the scientific community as a whole is open-minded enough to shift away from the "rigorous scientific method". The only way anything can possibly be right is if statistics says so. And this necessarily prohibits the development of tools such as the Myers-Briggs indicator, since you can only statistically test a behaviour, not a behavioural system or multi-faceted model, especially of the theoretical sort. Perhaps one day the psychological community will realise the restriction it is imposing on itself and break free. Time shal tell.

 

[Chad]

I enjoy the subjective self reflection it allows to to embrace.

I becoming more in more interested in self reflection. This may be an INTP trait I am not sure but it is certainly a Chad trait. This however has not always been the case.

I also think that intellectual types embrace a lot of the key personality aspects of INTPs. Since the generally prize these aspects in others they some times assume these aspects on themselves.

This could be wrong however it seem to be a likely effect of wishful thinking for many.

I for one have more of a problem with my own personality flaws that I relate to my personality type. The only two things I true embrace about it are T and maybe I and these two may be the two I exhibit the least. Not that I don't exhibit them often I just exhibit N and P more often.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

I'm not interested in typology. I merely like this specific forum.

 

[Coolydudey]

I'm not interested in typology. I merely like this specific forum.

It is a pretty great forum-completely unique. Still, you're an INTJ, so you don't count

 

[Hadoblado]

I've noticed that NT types, and above all INTPs, have much more of an interest in typology than others.

I thought it was an 'N' thing, not just 'NT'. I'd like to see the numbers for this.

I myself have pinned it down to the theoretical nature of typology. It's not like the rest of psychology "ooh look, the statistics say people who are crap at things think they are better than they are" (this won a Nobel prize, I'm not criticising, just getting a point across).

The Dunning-Kruger effect is interesting, when I read up on this there was still a bit of controversy surrounding whether or not the results of that study were legitimate. I don't really understand what you're trying to say here. If real, the DK effect can tell us a lot about humanity.

Typology provides a realm of abstract study that has so many different applications and so many ideas embedded in it. It's the realm of the INTP, an overarching system that in some ways works so well, but in others has flaws which provide interesting points for debate.

If you don't have some accepted medium of understanding (statistics maybe?), then you're going to end up with a whole lot of overconfident tossery over which school of thought represents reality. Verifying a theory is really quite fucking important. What we have at this moment, where even the most respected readers on the forum can't agree with one another, is not productive (though it is fun).

What makes this possible is the fact that we all communicate. We've met people, and we don't need any training or schooling to start discussing psychology. It's accessible to anyone.

Just like so many other exploitative disciplines.

So, on the other hand, should pasychology place a little more emphasis on such theoretical studies? It's hardly certain that not only the psychological community, but also the scientific community as a whole is open-minded enough to shift away from the "rigorous scientific method".

There is no rule against freely speculating, but for something to gain traction it must be testable.

The only way anything can possibly be right is if statistics says so.

Things can be right without statistics saying so (see type II error). But for people to have an inkling as to whether its right requires evidence. Things that are asserted with zero evidence can be dismissed with zero evidence.

And this necessarily prohibits the development of tools such as the Myers-Briggs indicator, since you can only statistically test a behaviour, not a behavioural system or multi-faceted model, especially of the theoretical sort. Perhaps one day the psychological community will realise the restriction it is imposing on itself and break free. Time shal tell.

As above, the development of these things is not prohibited. You can talk all you want about them, and develop them at your leisure. The only problem is that you have no way of making (rational) people believe it, which has nothing to do with a problem in science or psychology.

 

[Ink]

INTPs above all other types have a natural need to structure reality, typology just makes so much sense that we're drawn to it.

 

[redbaron]

I'm not interested in typology.

I like to base my ideas on people's actions and expressed ideals, not make false assumptions about them based on, 'they fall into X category of Y system'.

Far as I'm concerned the obsession over typing people is missing the point of typology in the first place. I couldn't give a shit what type anyone around me is.

 

[Jennywocky]

I find systems and grouping interesting (I like categorization of any kind of data, looking for the patterns with -- after all, I'm an analyst by profession), but I've really backed away from a lot of mainstream typing that occurs on sites.

I'm really only viewed it as a way to study patterns as well as a springboard towards interaction (when you recognize patterns in any field of data, you can use that to make forward progress more quickly), but for too many people it seems to become a way to put people in boxes... and often erroneously. The type ends up becoming more important than the individual.

 

[Nezumi]

I've thought about this for a while now. I think for me, it helps me understand people.
I used to quickly get irritated by people that didn't think like me. Since I didn't really have a way to understand others and social rules didn't make sense I tended to be very introverted. In my mind, it was better to not be social then to mess it up or be subject to boring topics.

When I started studying typology, it was like an INTP from the past had handed me this systematic map to navigate the social waters that I was floating in. It just makes sense. And it gave me a way to think.

Instead of getting annoyed that my boss wants to talk about her kids and garden....again. I mentally curl up for a boring conversation while thinking 'It's ok Nez. She's an ESFJ. She can't help it. ESFJ's are needed just like every other type. Lets see if we can steer the conversation towards biology by way of gardens and plants.'

 

[Montresor]

I've thought about this for a while now. I think for me, it helps me understand people.
I used to quickly get irritated by people that didn't think like me. Since I didn't really have a way to understand others and social rules didn't make sense I tended to be very introverted. In my mind, it was better to not be social then to mess it up or be subject to boring topics.

Agreed 100% you said it.

Also what Ink said.

 

[TRIGGER WARNING]

l had some loose "groupings" and theories about people before l know about typology so there's probably a natural attraction to it.

l'm drawn to MBTI as a whole. l spent as much time as l wanted to with my own type and l have phases with others.

l don't mind that it's theoretical, l have more interest in that than trying to explain every character trait with a disorder, l'm an MBTI ENTP and someone with ADHD in a psychiatrist's eyes so there's the perspective shift.

l had some of the basic ideas about people within mbti for years, it's nice to see them described and properly explained, l do think a lot of NTs have o idea what to think about what we now know as S/N growing up. All l could call it was "me, some people just like me, other people sort of like me but different, and everyone else.''

 

[Coolydudey]

I thought it was an 'N' thing, not just 'NT'. I'd like to see the numbers for this.

Just personal observation, so maybe not

The Dunning-Kruger effect is interesting, when I read up on this there was still a bit of controversy surrounding whether or not the results of that study were legitimate. I don't really understand what you're trying to say here. If real, the DK effect can tell us a lot about humanity.

It was just an example to illustrate how most psychology works

If you don't have some accepted medium of understanding (statistics maybe?), then you're going to end up with a whole lot of overconfident tossery over which school of thought represents reality. Verifying a theory is really quite fucking important. What we have at this moment, where even the most respected readers on the forum can't agree with one another, is not productive (though it is fun).

I never said something to the contrary, indeed, you are quite right.

Just like so many other exploitative disciplines.



There is no rule against freely speculating, but for something to gain traction it must be testable.

Of course

Things can be right without statistics saying so (see type II error). But for people to have an inkling as to whether its right requires evidence. Things that are asserted with zero evidence can be dismissed with zero evidence.

I was being ironic... What I meant was that we should use other means than statistics alone to test psychological theories.

As above, the development of these things is not prohibited. You can talk all you want about them, and develop them at your leisure. The only problem is that you have no way of making (rational) people believe it, which has nothing to do with a problem in science or psychology.


Well, it does signify a problem with the science, since it makes people essentially close-minded. I'm not talking about zero evidence, I'm talking about different kinds of evidence.

My replies in bold

 

[pjoa09]

That moment you feel you have been defined while reading an INTP personality description.

That is all.

 

[Magus]

Knowledge of myself, why I do things, and why I don't. Typology has given me a lot of peace of mind recently however as I have started learning as much as I can, I think a lot of INTPs especially go through a 'square-peg-in-a-round-hole' feeling and just feel disjointed from the society around them. I have felt this for a long time and it was seriously taking a toll on my mental health. Typology helps me to causally understand these feelings and gives me a direction towards which I attempt self growth.

Also I'm learning to type other people and its incredibly fun getting into other people's head and finding out what makes them tick.

 

[kvothe27]

Well, I was already full of it, but I wanted to be even more full of it, so here I am

 

[SLushhYYY]

Im not an NT and I care way too much

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Learning about Big 5/MBTI helped me to understand myself and others socially & psychologically, it put things into perspective for me. When I discovered Socionics though, it was more like Neo seeing the code behind the Matrix.

It's mostly the novelty, a new way of interpreting reality, but now it's just something I passively know about and occasionally rework my understanding of.

 

[gracious]

I'm an NF and it took me some time to warm up to typology. I was professionally tested by my employer and initially completely rejected my result as bunk.

I've always worked in traditionally NT careers so I thought that was who I was. It wasn't until I went through a period of heavy soul-searching that I revisited it. I took innumerable online tests and always got the same result. I looked at the algorithm more closely in terms of "strongly agree" responses and then I accepted my INFJ fate.

(I still sometimes contend that I'm some sort of hybrid INXJ but the INTJs can spot that I'm not one of them).

 

[wonkavision]

I've noticed that NT types, and above all INTPs, have much more of an interest in typology than others.

I myself have pinned it down to the theoretical nature of typology. It's not like the rest of psychology "ooh look, the statistics say people who are crap at things think they are better than they are" (this won a Nobel prize, I'm not criticising, just getting a point across). Typology provides a realm of abstract study that has so many different applications and so many ideas embedded in it. It's the realm of the INTP, an overarching system that in some ways works so well, but in others has flaws which provide interesting points for debate.

That's funny. I would think it's more of an NF thing, but you could be right.

I definitely think it's more of an N thing than an S thing, though I can't really back that up either. It just seems kinda intuitive to me, ya know.

I'm into it for pretty much the same reasons you cited.

It's pretty simple. I'm an INFJ. I'm very theoretical by nature and I'm interested in people. What's not to love about typology then, right?

 

[patchtrix]

I've thought about this for a while now. I think for me, it helps me understand people.
I used to quickly get irritated by people that didn't think like me. Since I didn't really have a way to understand others and social rules didn't make sense I tended to be very introverted. In my mind, it was better to not be social then to mess it up or be subject to boring topics.

When I started studying typology, it was like an INTP from the past had handed me this systematic map to navigate the social waters that I was floating in. It just makes sense. And it gave me a way to think.

Instead of getting annoyed that my boss wants to talk about her kids and garden....again. I mentally curl up for a boring conversation while thinking 'It's ok Nez. She's an ESFJ. She can't help it. ESFJ's are needed just like every other type. Lets see if we can steer the conversation towards biology by way of gardens and plants.'

I completely agree with this haha I like the idea of an INTP from past giving me a social map. I have begun to understand my relationships with many people from having better understanding of how they work.