Archetypes vs. Function Preference: a crucial misunderstanding?

[KazeCraven]

Okay, so I've been reading a few things on this forum and am starting to see two main schools of thought.

On the one hand I see what I would call an archetypal personality model. This one has INTPs being independent, logical, pragmatic, and generally distrusting of people. It's the one which fuels fun threads like "you know you are an INTP when..." as well as general descriptions about what an INTP life tends to look like. It's also probably the one that brings people together to find kin on this forum.

The other hand holds another view: that aside from being stimulated by two particular cognitive processes and drained by two opposing ones (and having conscious usage of half of the possible modes of thinking), we could be any type of person at all. It states that we like logic, particularly using our own personal logic, and we like possibilities to a lesser extent, but general manifestations such as argumentativeness or ignorance toward emotion are only likely features, not defining features.

It seems to me that the archetypal view is beneficial in that it causes people to find others who behave similarly, but it is less accurate because people can have mixed manifestations for various reasons. It's also the view that people tend to discredit personality theories with: the fact that we all fit in one of 16 little "boxes" doesn't jive with many people. People can be imaginative and logical but highly cooperative, and people who like to spend time alone don't necessarily have to be drained from it; maybe they just find most people boring. People who adhere to schedules aren't necessarily pushing an agenda, nor are people who focus on the big picture necessarily enthralled with theories. Hence why people of this framework are consistently either denying certain attributes fall into their type or questioning whether they are X type for real.

The cognitive process model, being a more principle-based (I'm tempted to say mathematical) view attempts to rectify this by focusing on the cause of all these traits. While I am not clear about which things it claims are certain and which it claims are possible or probable, it seems on the whole much more accurate about what it does claim. Perhaps this is what Isabel Myers Briggs had in mind when creating the theory (or perhaps only Carl Jung thought this way), but since it leaves so many details open people rush in with the archetypal theory to explain the small stuff.

In conclusion, I think MBTI & Typology is only meant to explain why some people have different types of thinking and are stimulated by certain types of activities. Why we pursue our given hobbies, trust certain methods, or have certain personality traits is a higher level manifestation of our complex brains and a question for broader psychological theories.

What do you think?

 

[echoplex]

It seems to me that the archetypal view is beneficial in that it causes people to find others who behave similarly, but it is less accurate because people can have mixed manifestations for various reasons.

Yep. The 16 'boxes' can act as nets, so to speak. Whether or not they are accurate, they can help build communities of people who identify with certain archetypes, even if those people turn out to be quite different (type-wise, I mean) as they get to know one another.

Comparing it to the cognitive functions model, you might say forums like this attract alot of people of different types (who identify with one type's archetypal model) and may also help to sort out those differences as they become more apparent.

 

[BigApplePi]

Yep. The 16 'boxes' can act as nets, so to speak. Whether or not they are accurate, they can help build communities of people who identify with certain archetypes, even if those people turn out to be quite different (type-wise, I mean) as they get to know one another.

Comparing it to the cognitive functions model, you might say forums like this attract alot of people of different types (who identify with one type's archetypal model) and may also help to sort out those differences as they become more apparent.

My impression of archetypes is they are much more fuzzy as to what they mean. That may very well reflect my recent absence of association with them. What ARE they? Let's have a display and definition before judgment is passed.

A couple months ago I had the rather odd experience of meeting with an MBTI get-together group. People from any of the 16 categories met around a table and talked to each other, mostly complete strangers. "What type are you?" we would ask each other. We were requested to shift positions every few minutes across the long table so we could experience everyone. What amazed me was there were present a total of four INTPs there including myself. At one point we found we were sitting 2 x 2 so all the INTPs could talk to each other. Everyone hit it off. When the time came to move, we didn't want to. Amazing.

 

[KazeCraven]

I'll propose a definition:

Archetypes roughly reflect the behavior of about the middle 50% (as seen on a normal distribution) of a given type that is not common to the population at large.

Maybe the theory explains what the descriptions mean, exactly?

 

[Adymus]

Archetypes are behavioral "masks" that we slip into at different times for different reasons, in order to serve different purposes. Different events in life require us to take on certain roles, and to take on these roles we must embody an archetype. For example: The hunter, the Gatherer, The mother, the lover, the student, the Mentor, etc. There are a countless amount of possible archetypes, but several primitive forms that just about everyone in any culture has and uses in some form or another. Every time you summon a certain archetype, you strengthen your connection with it, and you will begin to be able to summon it faster, and use it more confidently and effectively.

(Archetypes are kind of like GFs from Final Fantasy VIII in a sense. The more you summon them, the stronger your connection with them becomes, and you will be able to summon them faster in the future)

I'll use myself in this example: There is a certain archetype that I am starting to become more and more familiar with as of late, the Mentor. Once I go into Mentor mode when teaching a person something, my posture changes, my mannerisms change, even my style of speaking and tone of voice changes. I'll start using gesturing and body language that is more directive and authoritarian in nature. These are mannerisms that I don't just use all of the time for any occasion. It is also something that did not just appear as soon as I starting teaching a person anything, it was gradual, and I had to become more comfortable and familiar with it over time.

Any personality can use their version of any archetype, and you will see the same archetypes done differently by an assortment of different personalities. Because of this, the archetypes are connected to the personality types, but they are not the same. A Healer could be an INFP, but it is not exclusive to this personality. A Healer archetype could be done by an INTP, ESFJ, ISTJ, or any other personality. You can have all 16 personality types doing their own version of any archetype by using their differing sets of cognitive function hierarchies.

 

[KazeCraven]

I'm not sure Archetype is the right word then. Unless, of course, people take on an archetype so much that they identify with it. I see type descriptions as being archetypes, but perhaps they merely incorporate archetypes into the description?

Perhaps "manifestation" would be the right word. I'm trying to separate function preference from type tendencies. In essence, remove all the junk on top of type that people look at and say "that's not me..." and then go off into questioning their type all over again. Static vs. Dynamic, if you will. Some things can change, some things can't, and some things could have changed while we were young but can't change now (not sure on last part though).

There's a "INTPs all" and a "INTPs typically." The former defines you, the latter is just patterns of human behavior and may or may not describe you.