Personality Cafe banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

^ This is a link to a brief talk by Michael Pierce about why some people struggle to type themselves.
I think as an INTJ (or whatever fckn type I am), subjective confirmation of type is partially acceptable and partially... not inevitable enough. Pierce's discussion of how different functions are more or less prone to buy into confirmations derivative of subjective science is really helpful to understanding why certain types have more or less difficulty typing themselves, and how malleable these conclusions are.

Type cannot be objectively confirmed. Some people have more or less of a difficult time accepting this, and some dgaf.

It's less a video that comes to any strong conclusions, and more one that sparks an interesting conversation - I'd be interested to hear anyone's thoughts on this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kiribek

·
Registered
Joined
·
141 Posts
I agree and disagree at the same time.

The problem I've noticed with typology is that it limits itself by a specific number of types and a specific stack/orientation/number of functions. However, there is no objective way of confirming that the types are what the typology claims them to be, and that the functions are what they are claimed to be.
Typology and any kind of psychological/personality system is primarily reliant on a specific sample size of scientific/statistical observation of human behavior. However, every sample size is limited and has many unpredictable variables that can hinder the process of confirmation of a specific cause-effect phenomenon in human psychology, which in turn hinders the ability to bring human psychology into a concrete grid-like system like Typology or functions strive to be.

Over the years I've developed a tendency to observe and analyze every single person that I get to interact with, analyze him/her from the perspective of functions and mbti types. And I've noticed that I can definitely pin-point differences in them, for example some that suggest very strong Fe or Fi use. But as I've tried to proceed and figure out what other functions or dichotomy leanings they have, I've ran into contradictions time and time again. At first I assumed that maybe the way dichotomy is determined is wrong, or the way functions are stacked are wrong. But eventually, as I intuitively tried to overcome the hurdle of contradictions in my observations, I eventually arrived to the conclusion that it's not the way dichotomy is calculated and not the way functions are stacked that are wrong - but rather, the whole supposition that particular aspects of behavior are caused by THIS or THAT aspect of typology or functions - is by itself wrong or at the very least, extremely under-developed or far-fetched.
The amount of variables (such as intuition, sensing, thinking, feeling) is wrong, there could be more in reality than just these 4, or there could be less, and they could be called very differently, and the span of behavioral characteristics which each of them would influence in a person could also be vastly different than what we presume it to be.

All typology does is cast an extremely vague shadow of a personality's silhouette. And the reason we are unable to make out the details of that silhouette by observing that shadow, is simply because that shadow by itself doesn't contain those small details.

Typology and functions only SUGGEST a person's leaning towards particular "types", but it is incapable of defining them completely, due to a majority of variables it fails to account for, and subjectively being only one of them.
 

·
exploring space
ENFP
Joined
·
9,126 Posts
I agree and disagree at the same time.

The problem I've noticed with typology is that it limits itself by a specific number of types and a specific stack/orientation/number of functions. However, there is no objective way of confirming that the types are what the typology claims them to be, and that the functions are what they are claimed to be.
Typology and any kind of psychological/personality system is primarily reliant on a specific sample size of scientific/statistical observation of human behavior. However, every sample size is limited and has many unpredictable variables that can hinder the process of confirmation of a specific cause-effect phenomenon in human psychology, which in turn hinders the ability to bring human psychology into a concrete grid-like system like Typology or functions strive to be.

Over the years I've developed a tendency to observe and analyze every single person that I get to interact with, analyze him/her from the perspective of functions and mbti types. And I've noticed that I can definitely pin-point differences in them, for example some that suggest very strong Fe or Fi use. But as I've tried to proceed and figure out what other functions or dichotomy leanings they have, I've ran into contradictions time and time again. At first I assumed that maybe the way dichotomy is determined is wrong, or the way functions are stacked are wrong. But eventually, as I intuitively tried to overcome the hurdle of contradictions in my observations, I eventually arrived to the conclusion that it's not the way dichotomy is calculated and not the way functions are stacked that are wrong - but rather, the whole supposition that particular aspects of behavior are caused by THIS or THAT aspect of typology or functions - is by itself wrong or at the very least, extremely under-developed or far-fetched.
The amount of variables (such as intuition, sensing, thinking, feeling) is wrong, there could be more in reality than just these 4, or there could be less, and they could be called very differently, and the span of behavioral characteristics which each of them would influence in a person could also be vastly different than what we presume it to be.

All typology does is cast an extremely vague shadow of a personality's silhouette. And the reason we are unable to make out the details of that silhouette by observing that shadow, is simply because that shadow by itself doesn't contain those small details.

Typology and functions only SUGGEST a person's leaning towards particular "types", but it is incapable of defining them completely, due to a majority of variables it fails to account for, and subjectively being only one of them.
the contradictions you run into are probably the result of the system you are using indeed
if you are using the function stack of alternating E/I (by Harold Grant, I think), it is not used by the MBTI and was not how Jung envisioned types either and is most likely incorrect because it misunderstands the role of extra/introversion as an adaptability scale
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
I agree and disagree at the same time.

The problem I've noticed with typology is that it limits itself by a specific number of types and a specific stack/orientation/number of functions. However, there is no objective way of confirming that the types are what the typology claims them to be, and that the functions are what they are claimed to be.
Typology and any kind of psychological/personality system is primarily reliant on a specific sample size of scientific/statistical observation of human behavior. However, every sample size is limited and has many unpredictable variables that can hinder the process of confirmation of a specific cause-effect phenomenon in human psychology, which in turn hinders the ability to bring human psychology into a concrete grid-like system like Typology or functions strive to be.

Over the years I've developed a tendency to observe and analyze every single person that I get to interact with, analyze him/her from the perspective of functions and mbti types. And I've noticed that I can definitely pin-point differences in them, for example some that suggest very strong Fe or Fi use. But as I've tried to proceed and figure out what other functions or dichotomy leanings they have, I've ran into contradictions time and time again. At first I assumed that maybe the way dichotomy is determined is wrong, or the way functions are stacked are wrong. But eventually, as I intuitively tried to overcome the hurdle of contradictions in my observations, I eventually arrived to the conclusion that it's not the way dichotomy is calculated and not the way functions are stacked that are wrong - but rather, the whole supposition that particular aspects of behavior are caused by THIS or THAT aspect of typology or functions - is by itself wrong or at the very least, extremely under-developed or far-fetched.
The amount of variables (such as intuition, sensing, thinking, feeling) is wrong, there could be more in reality than just these 4, or there could be less, and they could be called very differently, and the span of behavioral characteristics which each of them would influence in a person could also be vastly different than what we presume it to be.

All typology does is cast an extremely vague shadow of a personality's silhouette. And the reason we are unable to make out the details of that silhouette by observing that shadow, is simply because that shadow by itself doesn't contain those small details.

Typology and functions only SUGGEST a person's leaning towards particular "types", but it is incapable of defining them completely, due to a majority of variables it fails to account for, and subjectively being only one of them.
I'm with what you're saying - I hear you.

You're right: typology can by no means capture much beyond a "shadow of a personality's silhouette." I think it's both, as you say, that "that shadow by itself doesn't contain those small details," but also that it discounts human nature. Even the most routine of humans don't act in 100% consistency at all times. Human nature warrants a shift in the way we handle situations or process information depending on what's happening around us; trauma plays a role as well. I think that on the whole, typology can give us a solid understanding of ourselves on a high-level, fundamental basis. But you're right, contradictions are essentially inevitable, there could be any number of functions or stacks, and people are capable of utilizing more functions than are solely in their stack. It's really just a basic way of understanding your fundamental cognitive processes.

In a sense, it's frustrating because I'd love to have an "answer" or solution to every behavior. I deeply desire to understand everything thoroughly and feel much more at peace when I do, but the truth is that psychology is a subjective science, and as such, that's simply impossible. As such, we can't analyze ourselves with the certainty that we could with robots. It's a positive thing, in a way, but also sets me off. Not that I'm interested in functioning robotically, but I wish I could understand myself on that level.

I thought your comment was interesting when you said that the sampling of humans we have access to (a good point to raise, incidentally) in addition to unpredictable variables is what "hinders the ability to bring human psychology into a concrete grid-like system..." That said, do you believe it actually has the capability to hypothetically become one? I think we can deepen our understanding, but cannot despite infinite amounts of research ever come to a point of classifying the subject as an objective one.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
16,307 Posts
Type: male

You would think that's objective

But apparently there is subjectivity when it comes to gender.

What makes you think Jungian type is any different?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Type: male

You would think that's objective

But apparently there is subjectivity when it comes to gender.

What makes you think Jungian type is any different?
That's entirely different and related to politics that I don't want to get into on this post :laughing:

In addition, I didn't make and never would have made the comparison, so I didn't think or claim that it was different. ;)
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top