Personality Cafe banner

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
521 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
A bit of context. I tried many times to understand the MBTI and I was going to abandon once and for all. But it would have been one of those many times where if I don't recognize myself in a paradigm (a way to see things, a sacrality) I just can't understand it. And guess what, it's still the case, but maybe you can help me.

For the moment I looked mostly at what Jung and Myers-Briggs say about personality types.

But first let's look at this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/MyersBriggsTypes.png

I know it's simplistic, but everything is good to try to connect myself to this theory, isn't it. If I look at every description of the types, I fit in 9 types:ISTJ, ISFJ, INFJ, INTJ, ISFP, INFP, ESFP, ENTP and ESFJ . I then added the number of times it was E or I, S or N, T or F and P or J. I got 6I 3E, 5S 4N, 3T 6F, 5J 4P. From there we could conclude, but I will not, that I'm ISFJ. That's really reductive.

If I look at the descriptions of all letters separately, I fit everywhere, like really, that's not a joke, I can't prefer one over another.

After those superficial informations, I tried to look a bit deeper in the theories.

And I got this defintive type: XXXJ. And I'm only J because I took enough time being XXXP the years before, and when most things I thought of will be acted, I'll go on a period being XXXP again, like a cycle. The other letter change so often that I can't figure out which I could eventually prefer. If you allow me this metaphor, choosing between one of those is to ask me if I want to cut my left or right leg, when both are fine...

I did a thread asking why people got into MBTI, and well, the answer were diverse to say the least, most seemed to me like fishes in the sea not knowing the limits and contradictions within the MBTI model, not willing to know them either, they're just swimming and that's fine. Some other took their distances toward the MBTI. And if the MBTI was right, many types would go past the MBTI, which is an ultimate contradiction, isn't it? ^^ Well actually, not really, it's normal, nothing stands through time, and MBTI is of another age...

So I don't know what the hell I'm doing here, I don't need the social recognition of the MBTI people, and I don't understand the MBTI model, not even the uselfulness of it. A new failure to add to my list of things I don't understand, at all, I hate that. We told me that Judith Butler was hard to understand, well it wasn't for me and I didn't facepalm every sentences. It pains me so much that I will never understand you :crying:, cause my brother is there, so I will never understand him anymore.

Is there a type who cannot understand MBTI? Cause that's my type... if I have one (don't even understand why someone should type themselves, identify okay, but type? Hell, it doesn't even consider dynamics and ambiguities, and thus being driven by them in opposition to be able to drive them)

P.S. I already regret starting this thread, it looks like if we're different enough we cannot understand eachother, but it's false, we always have a common social identity and thus we can always cooperate under some circumstances.

Mmh, say whatever you want, be constructive, unlike my comment. <3
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
761 Posts
DO you mind if I give you a hand for your MBTI type? All you need to do is answering my questions and we can both work together in order to find a type that makes sense to you. On the way, I'd provide informations to help you understand cognitive functions better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
521 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
DO you mind if I give you a hand for your MBTI type? All you need to do is answering my questions and we can both work together in order to find a type that makes sense to you. On the way, I'd provide informations to help you understand cognitive functions better.
Well, I'm adverse as ever against MBTI and any personality typology, the time doesn't seem to make things better. I don't even consider psychology to be able to address the issue, and find sociology far more able to predict the individual behaviours than any of those typology.

But I don't mind exchanges, I'll just be on the lookout for anything which could prove you wrong on my type. I don't know all the trick you have to actually convince yourself that I would be one type or another. Basically I won't accept that I could have any type.

So if you think that the exchange is worthwhile on your part beside my stance, do go on, I'll try to be as calm and comprehensive as possible ^^. I like to speak actually, and play games.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
761 Posts
Well, I'm adverse as ever against MBTI and any personality typology, the time doesn't seem to make things better. I don't even consider psychology to be able to address the issue, and find sociology far more able to predict the individual behaviours than any of those typology.

But I don't mind exchanges, I'll just be on the lookout for anything which could prove you wrong on my type. I don't know all the trick you have to actually convince yourself that I would be one type or another. Basically I won't accept that I could have any type.

So if you think that the exchange is worthwhile on your part beside my stance, do go on, I'll try to be as calm and comprehensive as possible ^^. I like to speak actually, and play games.
Interesting. In this case, it'd be better to leave it. I'm curious to know what made you reach that conclusion though.

Personally, I'm into sociology and psychology and I see both as complementary rather than one being better than the other. I believe in fact many sciences are interrelated in someway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
521 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Interesting. In this case, it'd be better to leave it. I'm curious to know what made you reach that conclusion though.

Personally, I'm into sociology and psychology and I see both as complementary rather than one being better than the other. I believe in fact many sciences are interrelated in someway.
Oh yeah, definitely, sociology isn't better than psychology, but the construction of a concept, like personality, is social and historical, and that's the case for every concept we use to represent the world. The content of our thoughts is heavily influenced by the historical and social construction of our language, as such, to my perception, psychology is scientific when it gets closer to how the brain function until the close perception of oneself, further, we get fast into sociology territory as meaning is more and more involved.

If we want to categorise functions of the brain, we would need to actually stay close to how a brain works. And MBTI doesn't rely on that at all, it's more philosophical than anything close to empiricism, something which would be closer to science. Unlike sociology, where you actually observe contingent facts, social ones, psychology should work on something which isn't that much contingent, or doesn't rely on social representation of the world. Of course, that's impossible, but we should be able to get closer to that objective.

So the problem is that if you lead a community to believe in MBTI, they'll begin to act differently than if they weren't into MBTI, that's a social construction, that's not a psychological fact. Psychology of the individual is indeed involved, but is completely blurried by the social construction that is MBTI which leads to particular behaviours based on this new representation of the individuals. Science is supposed to be critical, and if you're critical of MBTI, then you won't find much which holds. I don't want to see or hear people trying to prove me that MBTI is right, I want to see people who try to completely debunk MBTI, and if something still hold, then I'll have to accept that MBTI was upon something. But then we should explain me why we don't teach MBTI in faculties, or any other typology until we come to the "Big Five", which doesn't work like the other typology that are discussed here on this forum.

I've came accross the schema therapy which is based on a theory of the personality based on schema (this theory is only used because it's practical, it's not considered as very solid). I find that should question a lot people who are into MBTI while pretending doing psychology. Because first, what is the purpose of a psychological conception of the personality, if it isn't to help people change their psyche to actually being more in control of themselves. By no mean it should be a confirmation of who you're, psychology isn't about representation of oneself, that's social, but about what you can't change. We know that an autist can't stop to be an autist. That's important, there's a resistance, psychology is about proving those point of resistance in the psyche, and when we convert that into a therapy, we're actually trying to work around those point of resistance, either to get past them, or to get around this point of resistance to achieve something we would have not been able to do otherwise, if the person is willing of course.

All those resistances within the psyche have to observed with the representations of them aside, we have to put aside meaning as much as we can, to have some sort of access to the actual process which structure the psyche, not what cover the psyche, a representation. This critical work is very important when you want to do science.

I could get on this another time, discussing my interaction with my psychologist who I meet just to get what I need, because he's completely useless regarding my case, but it's not just him, every psychologists who would like to work on this issue is useless, as a psychologist, very cool to have a human being in front, I have no problem with that. They're still costly, I can be friends without needing to spend one penny. But the administration gave that subject to the psychologists, and now I have to see one... damn I hate that, and I'll even need to meet another one, hopefully not much longer than one or two sessions, they can spit so much personal bullshit on this, they're spectacular.

The other thing I know of personality, is also linked to therapy, it's about working on the emotions linked to each experience and their representations. Something very long to work on, where you can't generalise anything, and it's up to the individual to consider what is problematic, and what isn't. Typology would be absurd in this conception, but I think it's far better as it acknowledges the speech of the individual, and do not impose a representation on top of the individual we're facing.

So my problem would be something along the lines of where are the point of resistance that MBTI reveals, and where's the methodology behind those inquiries. And I already know the answers.

When I say that sociology is better, it's on specific things, not on everything, sociology is completely useless in psychiatry. To me, psychology should be the science behind the engineers who are the pyschiatrists. Not a science behind the representation of the world and the individuals which would be useless for a psychiatrist, like it is the case for MBTI.

My words may be a bit harsh, but that's where I'm at, and I want to be honest about it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,807 Posts
That image doesn't really present much a contrast between types. Nowhere in saying that a person is innovative means they cannot be pragmatic. These word clusters are going to diverge from the idea of the letter dichotomies. For various reasons, I think the terminology of the system is ambiguous and has led to many questions over the years.

One area where I questioned in the past was the thinking vs feeling dichotomy. Specifically, Thinking and Feeling functions are both considered to be rational functions. Yet, thinking seems to be itself defined by rationality. If Feeling is also rational, then what's the difference? The other part of that is constant use of terms suggesting adherence to logic and reason. Now without griping too much about what it means to be rational, it should be certainly obvious that very few people study logic. Very few people are versed in logic and at best we come to be aware of logical fallacies as we learn and discuss with one another. But before that occurs, we often commit those errors ourselves, there is certainly nothing about one person that would magically make them more logical, I'd think a person would go on to study logic and learn to avoid such errors that are common. So what really is Thinking then? Perhaps some idea of putting the numbers before the emotions or something. It is certainly aiming at some difference that can be understood and probably clarified, but the system instead just doesn't explain it too well. It is vague.

The other thing I notice with a lot of users here is they don't agree that they are dichotomies at all. Which is a valid criticism, look at the Wikipedia page. If I'm not mistaken the Wikipedia page suggests that a lot people get their results in a bell curve where most people lie in between the answers. On the other hand one can retort that the types are supposed to be idealized caricatures and nobody should really fit perfectly into them anyway. I don't think that can prevent someone from saying their preference scores lead to a type well enough though.

I agree with the commentary about how MBTI reading can cause people to describe themselves according to the type descriptions. It may happen in small levels, but perhaps the more annoying is when people directly rip the language from the descriptions to describe themselves. I think it suggests that they do not fully understand their personality. I find it odd that the system prefers self-assessment over anything else.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
761 Posts
@Innocentia

Thank you for sharing this. If you don't mind, I'd ask a few more questions as I'm trying to grasp 100% where you're coming from with your points.

Because first, what is the purpose of a psychological conception of the personality, if it isn't to help people change their psyche to actually being more in control of themselves. By no mean it should be a confirmation of who you're, psychology isn't about representation of oneself, that's social, but about what you can't change. We know that an autist can't stop to be an autist. That's important, there's a resistance, psychology is about proving those point of resistance in the psyche, and when we convert that into a therapy, we're actually trying to work around those point of resistance, either to get past them, or to get around this point of resistance to achieve something we would have not been able to do otherwise, if the person is willing of course.
I'm trying to understand here. Are you saying that psychological conception of the personality (I'm guessing you are including MBTI too) should be about what you can't change/ proving those point of resistance in the psyche but this isn't used that way? In other words, if this isn't about that, then it's useless, misleading or questionable?

All those resistances within the psyche have to observed with the representations of them aside, we have to put aside meaning as much as we can, to have some sort of access to the actual process which structure the psyche, not what cover the psyche, a representation. This critical work is very important when you want to do science.
Is it about psychology in general or typology?

I could get on this another time, discussing my interaction with my psychologist who I meet just to get what I need, because he's completely useless regarding my case, but it's not just him, every psychologists who would like to work on this issue is useless (..) But the administration gave that subject to the psychologists
Working on what? On....your personality? What are they trying to convince you? That you're not someone or something? You want ''something'' but they are gatekeeping? Why?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
521 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
@Innocentia

Thank you for sharing this. If you don't mind, I'd ask a few more questions as I'm trying to grasp 100% where you're coming from with your points.



I'm trying to understand here. Are you saying that psychological conception of the personality (I'm guessing you are including MBTI too) should be about what you can't change/ proving those point of resistance in the psyche but this isn't used that way? In other words, if this isn't about that, then it's useless, misleading or questionable?
Well, yeah, kind misleading, I'm not saying that I could do better. It's more about that I have greater expectations, for example, I get the feeling to have ADD. That could be not right, I wont try to build my personality around this auto-diagnostic. What I would be waiting from a psychologist on that matter, is to check if I have the same kind of resistance inside my psyche that other people diagnosed ADD have, on what I will have harder time to get my head around that someone without ADD will have, and what are the strategies to get around that, medical or simply knowledge of oneself and our limits.

What I don't want to hear, is that I'm part of the diversity of the human psyche and it could be used as a complementary feature of my psyche. Of course I'm part of the diversity and the psychologists should by no mean tell me otherwise, but that's political and social, not psychological. How I represent myself should be ultimately up to me, my autonomy should be preserved. How do you keep your autonomy if a psychologist impose a representation of the world where everyone is one type of the MBTI?

Classification of individuals is a political power on individuals, it's not the job of psychologists, it's important to know the limit of a scientific field.

Is it about psychology in general or typology?
About psychology in general, but I may be a bit too direct here, I don't have that much critical distance. But that's still what I think, I could question it later.



Working on what? On....your personality? What are they trying to convince you? That you're not someone or something? You want ''something'' but they are gatekeeping? Why?
Personality? I don't know, kinda yes, I'm a trans feminine person, and the exchanges I have with my psy are ridiculous. And I'm scared that if I don't spit out the essentialist narrative of trans women, maybe I would have problems getting surgeries without having to waste all of my money, or getting my treatment at all. I should contact the association for LGBTQ+ again to be sure that I don't commit an error which could be fatal in my transition, I have already done two errors, or maybe already three as my psy was telling me I didn't fit what he was expecting from a trans woman. Something I'm not but he couldn't understand, or maybe he did... All that to be probably rejected by transphobes lesbians, I hate that world. I don't understand that some trans people had to lie to the psys to get their hormones, how long can you be in front of someone who is making inquiries into your head, and you can keep lying. Or maybe it's me who is naive, who don't understand what it really is to be between death and life, my episodes of depression, even if my dysphoria is hitting hard now, were soft compared to others.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top