The majority of the following post is a personal anecdote used as an explanation, or possibly a justification, of why I tend to trust my own intuition over commonly accepted scientific theories, and also why I consider introspection to be a legitimate scientific process. As a topic for discussion, the question is, "Is Introspection a Legitimate Process for Validating Theories in Fields of Science, comparable to that of the Scientific Method?" My reason for answering "yes" to that question is explained thusly:
Generally, I like a scientific theory that confirms what I already know to be true, or at least does not contradict my prior knowledge in its basic form, and then continues on to expand my knowledge beyond what I could figure out on my own. One example of such a theory is Myers Briggs psychology, specifically that of the personality types.
I discovered the Myers Briggs personality theory before I even referred to it as “Myers Briggs,” or even associated it with personalities and psychology at all. To me, that branch of psychology was not a division of how people think and make choices based on their personality; it was a division of how people think and make choices based on their chosen philosophical worldview. Here is a chart that I created while studying this “philosophy,” which I eventually translated into Myers Briggs Psychology: (CHART)
Before proceeding to translate this chart into Myers Briggs psychology, as I first did upon discovering that branch of psychology nearly six months ago I will succinctly explain its basic meaning. The two axes represent the two basic aspects of an individual’s worldview, as I saw it. The horizontal axis represents how that worldview determines how things are, and the vertical axis represents how that worldview determines how things should be. Those axes stretch from “objectivism” on one end to “subjectivism” on the other, which I will define thusly to avert confusion (my usage of the term diverges slightly from the official definition): “Objectivism” sees any idea as right or wrong (which is an amalgamation of “true or false” and “good or evil;” the separation of the two dichotomies is innate to this graph’s two-axis approach and justified by what philosophers refer to as the Fact-Value Distinction) independent of the individual pondering the weight of said idea, which makes it a black-and-white mindset. “Subjectivism” sees any idea as right or wrong only from the perspective of an individual, which makes it a grey-and-gray mindset.
Each quartile, as indicated by the “–isms” placed inside of it, represents a basic philosophical worldview which is distinct from the others based on its position relative to the two axes. Total objectivism, of facts and of values, of how things are and how things should be, is referred to simply as Objectivism, and vice versa for Subjectivism. The other two are only slightly more complicated. At the intersection of objective facts and subjective values lies Empiricism (or Rationalism, or something else like that), which will only accept a black-and-white independent explanation of how things are, but will accept a gray and flexible explanation of how things should be. This is associated closely with the scientific method and its core philosophy, which create a standard procedure for proving the existence of any thing or any concept, but do not create a standard procedure for proving the existence of a superior future derived from an idealistic vision.
Directly across from “Empiricism” lies “Platonism”, which will only accept a black-and-white independent explanation of how things should be, but will accept a gray and flexible explanation of how things are. This worldview is innate to Plato’s Theory of Forms. In that Theory, Plato posited the existence of perfect Forms that manifest imperfectly in reality but can be recognized by people. For example, in a laptop we can recognize the form of a Computer, and in a courtroom we can recognize the form of Justice. These forms are not negotiable; they are perfect and definite; they are black-and-white; they are “objective.” However—at least from my interpretation of the Theory of Forms—Plato did not particularly care about how those forms manifested. The Theory of Forms existed, in one light, for the express purpose of defying an objective reality by declaring reality itself to be imperfect. In that sense, then, reality is left up to interpretation, and how things are is subjective.
That is the basic concept behind my third philosophical Mindset Axis Model. I later discovered, though, that the concept I had unearthed was not philosophical at all. Here is my initial translation of the chart’s ideas into those of Myers Briggs psychology: (CHART)
My philosophical ideas, when I began the process of synthesizing them with those of Myers Briggs psychology, seemed to fit quite nicely. “How Things Are” fits easily into the category of Sensing vs. Intuition, which is defined as how an individual takes in information. Sensing takes in information based on concrete and objective facts, which thus would lead to a black-and-white worldview since any idea would be either a concrete fact or not a concrete fact. Intuition takes in information based on abstract concepts and pattern recognition, both of which are universally recognized as subjective to the perception and thoughts of the individual. “How Things Should Be” seemed also to fit easily into the category of Thinking vs. Feeling, which is defined by how an individual makes their decisions. One might think that Thinking and Feeling would be switched when translated into Subjectivism and Objectivism respectively, and they would be right—based on the “official” definition of those terms. However, my definition of those terms was based on “black and white vs. gray” rather than “impersonal vs. personal,” which led it to diverge from that of a common dictionary. On the one hand, Feeling is much more black-and-white positive-or-negative than Thinking, but on the other, Thinking uses “objective” impersonal logic. Still, the matter is hardly relevant. “How Things Should Be” is certainly not only comparable but synonymous with the process of decision making—one makes a decision to change something, or not to change something, based on whether or not they think that such a change should occur.
Still, something did not feel quite right. My concepts of the four quadrants seemed to include more than those two axes. So, instead of thinking more and inevitably arriving at the same result but with more effort, I decided to cheat and look into the other two categories of Myers Briggs psychology. I found Extraversion vs. Introversion to be rather useless, since it did not seem to explain the dissonance between the concepts as I knew them and their manifestation in a two-dimensional model. However, Judging vs. Perceiving fit the bill. My problem with my old two-dimensional model is that it did not provide for the smaller differences in the mindsets that I desperately desired to understand. Platonism and Objectivism as I defined them did not differentiate between principle and emotion, and Subjectivism and Empiricism as I defined them did not differentiate between logic and realism.
Luckily, the Judging vs. Perceiving functions gave me the answer to the dilemma which I otherwise would have had to solve through introspection. It saved me time and effort by explaining that the direction of a function changed its manifestation in a personality, or a “mindset” as it was called while under the guise of philosophy. For example, principle is Extraverted Feeling (Fe) whereas emotion is Introverted Feeling (Fi), and logic is Introverted Thinking (Ti) whereas realism is Extraverted Thinking (Te). Decisions under Fe must adhere to a sense of objective morality, manifest in the world and in every consciousness, whereas decisions under Fi must adhere to subjective emotionality, manifest in the perspective of the individual that utilizes it to understand how any given decision would make them feel. Decisions under Ti must adhere to a subjective construct of basic logic that are only “real” in the mind of their user, whereas decisions under Te must adhere to the objective reality to which they are applied, and cannot be logical only in the mind of their user. Thus, the addition of the Judging vs. Perceiving dimension split the horizontal axis of my previous model in two, bringing my idea one step closer to legitimacy via synthesis with a preexisting psychological theory. Given that the addition of the Extraversion vs. Introversion axis changed nothing of my original theory, complete synthesis was not only possible but easy.
My point here is not only to describe the process by which I realized that my theory had already been discovered, but to point out that my process and that of Mr. Jung used two different methods to understand the same basic concept—wait, no, just kidding. Mr. Jung and I used the exact same damn process to get the exact same damn result. Neither of us relied on any “legitimate methods” or “empirical evidence” to justify our theories. Instead, our “methods primarily included…observation, introspection, and anecdote—methods that are largely regarded as inconclusive by the modern field of psychology.” (Source)
I, for one, find the fact that both of our “inconclusive” methods led to the same result—which is widely known, used, and praised almost a century since its inception—to be rather hilarious. If our conclusion is indeed conceptually valid, but neither of us used “empirical” or “legitimate” methods to justify it, does that make it any less valid? We certainly do not think so. We consider our theory to be scientifically valid, whether or not it is consistent with the scientific method. This, then, is my (our?) justification for my ostensibly pretentious view of scientific theories as inferior to my own introspective theories and pattern recognition.
It is worth mentioning that Mr. Jung and I are both INFJs, which back-translates into my newly outdated philosophy as “those who see how things are as subjective, but how things should be as objective” and thus tend to get annoyed by the scientific method’s insistence on detached empirical validation. (Source)
So then, what do you think about the usage of introspection as a method of developing scientific theories? Is the fact that Mr. Jung and I both 'created' essentially same theory without relying on empirical evidence a mere coincidence, or does it point to the legitimacy of that theory?
Generally, I like a scientific theory that confirms what I already know to be true, or at least does not contradict my prior knowledge in its basic form, and then continues on to expand my knowledge beyond what I could figure out on my own. One example of such a theory is Myers Briggs psychology, specifically that of the personality types.
I discovered the Myers Briggs personality theory before I even referred to it as “Myers Briggs,” or even associated it with personalities and psychology at all. To me, that branch of psychology was not a division of how people think and make choices based on their personality; it was a division of how people think and make choices based on their chosen philosophical worldview. Here is a chart that I created while studying this “philosophy,” which I eventually translated into Myers Briggs Psychology: (CHART)
Before proceeding to translate this chart into Myers Briggs psychology, as I first did upon discovering that branch of psychology nearly six months ago I will succinctly explain its basic meaning. The two axes represent the two basic aspects of an individual’s worldview, as I saw it. The horizontal axis represents how that worldview determines how things are, and the vertical axis represents how that worldview determines how things should be. Those axes stretch from “objectivism” on one end to “subjectivism” on the other, which I will define thusly to avert confusion (my usage of the term diverges slightly from the official definition): “Objectivism” sees any idea as right or wrong (which is an amalgamation of “true or false” and “good or evil;” the separation of the two dichotomies is innate to this graph’s two-axis approach and justified by what philosophers refer to as the Fact-Value Distinction) independent of the individual pondering the weight of said idea, which makes it a black-and-white mindset. “Subjectivism” sees any idea as right or wrong only from the perspective of an individual, which makes it a grey-and-gray mindset.
Each quartile, as indicated by the “–isms” placed inside of it, represents a basic philosophical worldview which is distinct from the others based on its position relative to the two axes. Total objectivism, of facts and of values, of how things are and how things should be, is referred to simply as Objectivism, and vice versa for Subjectivism. The other two are only slightly more complicated. At the intersection of objective facts and subjective values lies Empiricism (or Rationalism, or something else like that), which will only accept a black-and-white independent explanation of how things are, but will accept a gray and flexible explanation of how things should be. This is associated closely with the scientific method and its core philosophy, which create a standard procedure for proving the existence of any thing or any concept, but do not create a standard procedure for proving the existence of a superior future derived from an idealistic vision.
Directly across from “Empiricism” lies “Platonism”, which will only accept a black-and-white independent explanation of how things should be, but will accept a gray and flexible explanation of how things are. This worldview is innate to Plato’s Theory of Forms. In that Theory, Plato posited the existence of perfect Forms that manifest imperfectly in reality but can be recognized by people. For example, in a laptop we can recognize the form of a Computer, and in a courtroom we can recognize the form of Justice. These forms are not negotiable; they are perfect and definite; they are black-and-white; they are “objective.” However—at least from my interpretation of the Theory of Forms—Plato did not particularly care about how those forms manifested. The Theory of Forms existed, in one light, for the express purpose of defying an objective reality by declaring reality itself to be imperfect. In that sense, then, reality is left up to interpretation, and how things are is subjective.
That is the basic concept behind my third philosophical Mindset Axis Model. I later discovered, though, that the concept I had unearthed was not philosophical at all. Here is my initial translation of the chart’s ideas into those of Myers Briggs psychology: (CHART)
My philosophical ideas, when I began the process of synthesizing them with those of Myers Briggs psychology, seemed to fit quite nicely. “How Things Are” fits easily into the category of Sensing vs. Intuition, which is defined as how an individual takes in information. Sensing takes in information based on concrete and objective facts, which thus would lead to a black-and-white worldview since any idea would be either a concrete fact or not a concrete fact. Intuition takes in information based on abstract concepts and pattern recognition, both of which are universally recognized as subjective to the perception and thoughts of the individual. “How Things Should Be” seemed also to fit easily into the category of Thinking vs. Feeling, which is defined by how an individual makes their decisions. One might think that Thinking and Feeling would be switched when translated into Subjectivism and Objectivism respectively, and they would be right—based on the “official” definition of those terms. However, my definition of those terms was based on “black and white vs. gray” rather than “impersonal vs. personal,” which led it to diverge from that of a common dictionary. On the one hand, Feeling is much more black-and-white positive-or-negative than Thinking, but on the other, Thinking uses “objective” impersonal logic. Still, the matter is hardly relevant. “How Things Should Be” is certainly not only comparable but synonymous with the process of decision making—one makes a decision to change something, or not to change something, based on whether or not they think that such a change should occur.
Still, something did not feel quite right. My concepts of the four quadrants seemed to include more than those two axes. So, instead of thinking more and inevitably arriving at the same result but with more effort, I decided to cheat and look into the other two categories of Myers Briggs psychology. I found Extraversion vs. Introversion to be rather useless, since it did not seem to explain the dissonance between the concepts as I knew them and their manifestation in a two-dimensional model. However, Judging vs. Perceiving fit the bill. My problem with my old two-dimensional model is that it did not provide for the smaller differences in the mindsets that I desperately desired to understand. Platonism and Objectivism as I defined them did not differentiate between principle and emotion, and Subjectivism and Empiricism as I defined them did not differentiate between logic and realism.
Luckily, the Judging vs. Perceiving functions gave me the answer to the dilemma which I otherwise would have had to solve through introspection. It saved me time and effort by explaining that the direction of a function changed its manifestation in a personality, or a “mindset” as it was called while under the guise of philosophy. For example, principle is Extraverted Feeling (Fe) whereas emotion is Introverted Feeling (Fi), and logic is Introverted Thinking (Ti) whereas realism is Extraverted Thinking (Te). Decisions under Fe must adhere to a sense of objective morality, manifest in the world and in every consciousness, whereas decisions under Fi must adhere to subjective emotionality, manifest in the perspective of the individual that utilizes it to understand how any given decision would make them feel. Decisions under Ti must adhere to a subjective construct of basic logic that are only “real” in the mind of their user, whereas decisions under Te must adhere to the objective reality to which they are applied, and cannot be logical only in the mind of their user. Thus, the addition of the Judging vs. Perceiving dimension split the horizontal axis of my previous model in two, bringing my idea one step closer to legitimacy via synthesis with a preexisting psychological theory. Given that the addition of the Extraversion vs. Introversion axis changed nothing of my original theory, complete synthesis was not only possible but easy.
My point here is not only to describe the process by which I realized that my theory had already been discovered, but to point out that my process and that of Mr. Jung used two different methods to understand the same basic concept—wait, no, just kidding. Mr. Jung and I used the exact same damn process to get the exact same damn result. Neither of us relied on any “legitimate methods” or “empirical evidence” to justify our theories. Instead, our “methods primarily included…observation, introspection, and anecdote—methods that are largely regarded as inconclusive by the modern field of psychology.” (Source)
I, for one, find the fact that both of our “inconclusive” methods led to the same result—which is widely known, used, and praised almost a century since its inception—to be rather hilarious. If our conclusion is indeed conceptually valid, but neither of us used “empirical” or “legitimate” methods to justify it, does that make it any less valid? We certainly do not think so. We consider our theory to be scientifically valid, whether or not it is consistent with the scientific method. This, then, is my (our?) justification for my ostensibly pretentious view of scientific theories as inferior to my own introspective theories and pattern recognition.
It is worth mentioning that Mr. Jung and I are both INFJs, which back-translates into my newly outdated philosophy as “those who see how things are as subjective, but how things should be as objective” and thus tend to get annoyed by the scientific method’s insistence on detached empirical validation. (Source)
So then, what do you think about the usage of introspection as a method of developing scientific theories? Is the fact that Mr. Jung and I both 'created' essentially same theory without relying on empirical evidence a mere coincidence, or does it point to the legitimacy of that theory?
