Personality Cafe banner
1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
757 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I have reached a point of studying and understanding the MBTI to say it is quite logical and employs a lot of behavior which would be unknown to us finally starting to connect. Jung has stated that preferences are the key to personality and we tend to use functions externally and internally. Thoughts, feeling, senses and intuition really seem to be all that is part of us - nothing more or less. Yet somehow we cognitively function in a way that uses more or less and eternally or internally. This seems rather quite true when different personality types are evaluated. I am becoming curious as to why this may be plausible. Nothing really seems to be proven that the preferences are really it and most psychology often ends up having hit and miss answers (unlike neuroscience). I am not being skeptical, but am simply highly curious why as opposed to how.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Heresy

·
MOTM August 2012
Joined
·
3,467 Posts
Well because with psychology you're attempting to quantify something that is by its nature immeasurable. The whole idea of a psyche is a conceptualization of what are really just neurological processes. But just understanding things from a neurological perspective doesn't really help anyone (in fact it has the potential to make things worse by claiming that, say a psychological illness, may be a biological disposition -- you can see then how people might try and justify all kinds of things or behaviors by saying 'its in my genes,' and having neurology to back them up).

So Jung's theory is a conceptualization of thought processes. A way of taking what's going on neurologically and translating into what people can understand. Thinking, Feeling, Sensation, Intuition. I actually do not think that he would have much trouble with the neuroscience community because they are fundamentally doing two different things. It's sort of like someone who focuses on the mechanics of how a car works, versus someone who focuses on the actual driving of the car. So Jung's is a more heuristic model that can't really proven or disproven. A philosophical way of approaching the human cognitive experience. The trouble modern science has with Jung and Freud and Adler, etc., is not in their conclusions but rather in the lack of empiricism. Because these are basically philosophies they can neither be proven nor disproven, modern science doesn't really accept the value in it for more than just an anecdotal concept. Things have to be tested, proven, evaluated, hypothesized, etc., not just philosophized about, so Jung, even in his day, was at odds with the modern scientific and psychological communities (despite attempting to be very buttoned up methodically with his own research), much more than he probably would've fought a neuroscientist. I think he would've shared Einstein's philosophy that "Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
757 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Well because with psychology you're attempting to quantify something that is by its nature immeasurable. The whole idea of a psyche is a conceptualization of what are really just neurological processes. But just understanding things from a neurological perspective doesn't really help anyone (in fact it has the potential to make things worse by claiming that, say a psychological illness, may be a biological disposition -- you can see then how people might try and justify all kinds of things or behaviors by saying 'its in my genes,' and having neurology to back them up).

So Jung's theory is a conceptualization of thought processes. A way of taking what's going on neurologically and translating into what people can understand. Thinking, Feeling, Sensation, Intuition. I actually do not think that he would have much trouble with the neuroscience community because they are fundamentally doing two different things. It's sort of like someone who focuses on the mechanics of how a car works, versus someone who focuses on the actual driving of the car. So Jung's is a more heuristic model that can't really proven or disproven. A philosophical way of approaching the human cognitive experience. The trouble modern science has with Jung and Freud and Adler, etc., is not in their conclusions but rather in the lack of empiricism. Because these are basically philosophies they can neither be proven nor disproven, modern science doesn't really accept the value in it for more than just an anecdotal concept. Things have to be tested, proven, evaluated, hypothesized, etc., not just philosophized about, so Jung, even in his day, was at odds with the modern scientific and psychological communities (despite attempting to be very buttoned up methodically with his own research), much more than he probably would've fought a neuroscientist. I think he would've shared Einstein's philosophy that "Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”
I am well aware that neuroscience and psychology operate on different premises, however the brain is related to the study of both fields. There must be fundamental evidence or at least support that I'm looking for (if not already used). If you take mental disorders and abnormalities into consideration, autism is being looked at through neuroscience.

I wasn't really asking for an answer based on neuroscience, because chances are we haven't delved into that enough. I just want an answer for supporting MBTI. People shouldn't have to blindly follow something that has no support for it. A lot of psychological theories don't really give enough to truly know, but there should at least be something backing it up and I'm just curious of what that may be.

On the contrary, if MBTI is fundamentally correct, which I and the community accept it to be, then there should be some neuroscience that has simply yet to be discovered. The brain, nervous system and neurons are all interconnected with the psyche. I'm obviously not gonna get an answer based on that kind of information, but a starting point would certainly be helpful. That's really how anything is empirically measured. It will need a well thought out guess that at least has a helpful aim.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pneumoceptor

·
MOTM August 2012
Joined
·
3,467 Posts
Well we have to separate MBTI from Jung if we're talking about psychology. MBTI is built around behavioral studies (and really intended to be applied as such). Myers was a behavioralist not a psychologist. As psychology MBTI falls fairly short. Way too many generalizations and assumptions, some that are really too dramatic to be taken seriously like J/P (or even E/I existing on a sliding scale).

So from a behavioral standpoint, Myers theories (along with those like Kiersey) probably under general circumstances hold up. People do seem to fit the basic patterns that are laid out in MBTI and temperament theories.The issue is, because the premise upon these assumptions are often tenuous at best 1) we don't know whether or not say J/P preferences are actually rooted in any real psychological cause and 2) MBTI really makes no effort to dig to that level, choosing rather to focus on more surface evaluations and conclusions.

As far as Jung goes, however, his philosophy is rooted in actual psychology and is meant to be such, a study of the psyche (as he conceives it) and thus I think, though he was somewhat at odds with some in the scientific community, his methods, research represent thorough methodology. He approached his study as a scientist, as a practicing psychoanalyst not focusing on surface behavioral tendencies but on understanding what was going on underneath. When we look at it this way, we can begin to see that, for example, many of the pathology symptoms listed in the DSM-IV mirror Jung's (and his contemporaries like Horney, Adler, Freud, etc) conclusions. Ideas like complexes, psychological repression, unconscious influences and the like are generally accepted at least on some level, if not by the scientific community, definitely by the mainstream (I mean the movie Inception is sort of a take off of Jung and Freud's ideas). In contrast simplifying everything down to say Judging/Perceiving might make for a good way to quickly evaluate people in an office, but would have a hard time holding up to the scrutiny of the scientific method (first of all we'd have to definitively define what we mean by J/P and agree upon it. And secondly Jung's more classical ideas like conscious and unconscious are seemingly apparent.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
We have a metaphor that Jung did not have. The computer.
I think you will get closer to the truth using this metaphor.
In that case we have Hardware (the body, nervous system and so on) that have input and output ports. (Feeling, Seeing, Hearing, Moving, Talking). Taking in inputs and producing output is done by the nervous system / brain. The connections between neurons describes a program on how to operate on the information. Some are built in (we are born with it, like the potentiality of spoken language that few other species have), and other are built from social interactions and self reflection.
From this point of view: Can you explain how Netscape works by studying the terminating resistors of the DRAM? Can you explain what PowRay will create by looking at FPU power consumption? Probably not.
If things go wrong with the system (something that scientists seems to have focused on, like personality disorders) you might find the problem both in the hardware and the software, but if you attack the problem in the wrong domain you will most likely fail.

I think we will understand all the neuroscience there is, but that will not make us understand humans.

We have a hard time understanding the programs we design ourselves for computers. Like the saying "If you design a program that is as complex as you can create, you are not smart enough to debug it". And these are often serial series of decision making with one or a few parallel threads of execution (as people have a hard time grasping more). The brain makes order of magnitudes more decisions per second than our fastest computers, and in a massively parallel mode.
 

·
MOTM August 2012
Joined
·
3,467 Posts
We have a metaphor that Jung did not have. The computer.
I think you will get closer to the truth using this metaphor.
In that case we have Hardware (the body, nervous system and so on) that have input and output ports. (Feeling, Seeing, Hearing, Moving, Talking). Taking in inputs and producing output is done by the nervous system / brain. The connections between neurons describes a program on how to operate on the information. Some are built in (we are born with it, like the potentiality of spoken language that few other species have), and other are built from social interactions and self reflection.
From this point of view: Can you explain how Netscape works by studying the terminating resistors of the DRAM? Can you explain what PowRay will create by looking at FPU power consumption? Probably not.
If things go wrong with the system (something that scientists seems to have focused on, like personality disorders) you might find the problem both in the hardware and the software, but if you attack the problem in the wrong domain you will most likely fail.

I think we will understand all the neuroscience there is, but that will not make us understand humans.

We have a hard time understanding the programs we design ourselves for computers. Like the saying "If you design a program that is as complex as you can create, you are not smart enough to debug it". And these are often serial series of decision making with one or a few parallel threads of execution (as people have a hard time grasping more). The brain makes order of magnitudes more decisions per second than our fastest computers, and in a massively parallel mode.
I agree with this fully. I think the thing is though, from the standpoint of science, we can't prove Jung so science will always fall back on looking at the mechanics of the machine. THis is why Jung was at odds with modern science, because he saw it as too oriented to the physical and the tangible and the explainable. That while yes these may just be neurochemical processes, that doesn't help anyone, anymore than knowing that I have a few bytes of bad RAM in my computer. And unfortunately much of the psychological community is built around things like research or studying cognition via neuroscience, but not a lot on actually understanding actual people.

I mean look at this Curriculum for Grad Psych students at UCLA (one of the top psyche programs in the USA). Now I'm certainly not knocking UCLA's program, but you can see how academic and research focused the program's areas of study are. It's all sort of scientific, a lot of study of the brain, but you wonder how much study of the 'mind' or the actual 'psyche' there is. The closest we get to Jung (or even MBTI) might be Clinical Psychology.

Behavioral Neuroscience
Clinical Psychology
Cognitive Psychology
Cognitive Neuroscience *
Specialization in Computational Cognition **
Developmental Psychology
Health Psychology
Learning & Behavior
Quantitative
Social Psychology
Here's the curriculum for clinical psychology
There are specializations in child psychopathology and treatment, cognitive-behavior therapy, clinical assessment, adult psychopathology and treatment, family processes, assessment and intervention with distressed couples, community psychology, stress and coping, minority mental health, health psychology and behavioral medicine, and cross-cultural research on psychopathology and mental health.
So one gets the sense that the person just trying to cope with some of the everyday problems of life might get hit over the head with a lot of theory and research but not a lot that actually deals with their needs, their minds, their hopes, fears, desires, etc., which I think is the biggest difference between modern psychology and the analysts (Freud, Jung, Adler, Horney, etc).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Myers and Briggs were both merely obsessive observers. As stated previously, they were behaviourists and not scientists. Their work practically has no objective justification. That may explain by and large why there are so many exceptions to their work. For example, their poster-boy of INTPism, Albert Einstein, battled with his personal values such as pacifism, vegetarianism and Zionism his whole life. The human mind, indeed human behaviour is simply too complex to even framework with 16 catgories.

As for Jung, he was a psychologist, very intelligent but unfortunately working in a very early field. His attempts to categorize all people like a good scientist were unfortunately misplaced. For example a common trait of intuitives is that they are more likely to vote for liberal politicians were as sensors will vote for more conservative politicians. But this is obvious since anyway who identifies themselves as intuitive must necessarily identify themselves as to theoretical people with little attention for detail. They must also identify themselves as having good foresight and being less concerned with immediate realities, hence it is obvious that by and large, intuitives will vote for more liberal politicians.

Perhaps it was a sign of Jung's frustration to attempt to lable all people into sixteen categories. In fairness, he was a scientist with a thirst for understanding who was applying his mind to a hyper-complex, hyper-elusive system with only the previous works of speculative philosopher's to start on. Fittingly he was someone with almost no believe in statistics saying that "you could prove anything with statistics". This came back to haunt him a little, since more recent psychological studies have shown that people with certain MBTI's do not commonly have any other traits than that obviously associated with the individual letters, i.e; an INTP will be more open ended than say an INTJ, who is likely to be more determined. But neither will necessarily be more disposed to make decisions based on logic or personal values (as would be suggested in the cognitive functions).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,382 Posts
For example, their poster-boy of INTPism, Albert Einstein, battled with his personal values such as pacifism, vegetarianism and Zionism his whole life. The human mind, indeed human behaviour is simply too complex to even framework with 16 catgories.
Okay, this was a presumptuous statement. First off, INTPs can have values, like anyone else, and not even Myers and Briggs disqualify this possibility. They are inferior Fe types - sure, they'll have values, but their values don't rule their decision-making, as in, they don't make value JUDGEMENTS to make decisions, which is the TRUE DEFINITION OF THE F FUNCTIONS. I think Myers and Briggs were aware of this. They included all of the conscious functions in their model. It's just that their system doesn't make the function-dynamics of each type very clear, since their theory is behavioral and not psychological in nature.

His attempts to categorize all people like a good scientist were unfortunately misplaced. For example a common trait of intuitives is that they are more likely to vote for liberal politicians were as sensors will vote for more conservative politicians. But this is obvious since anyway who identifies themselves as intuitive must necessarily identify themselves as to theoretical people with little attention for detail. They must also identify themselves as having good foresight and being less concerned with immediate realities, hence it is obvious that by and large, intuitives will vote for more liberal politicians.
I have no idea what this has to do with anything. Where's the evidence? Oh, that's right, there is none. Jung never even made such a statement. This is totally your fantasy. Are you implying that liberal politicians don't operate empirically?

Perhaps it was a sign of Jung's frustration to attempt to lable all people into sixteen categories.
He didn't lump people into 16 categories if you actually study him. Briggs and Myers did that.

In fairness, he was a scientist with a thirst for understanding who was applying his mind to a hyper-complex, hyper-elusive system with only the previous works of speculative philosopher's to start on.
No, he actually observed mental patients to come to many, many of the conclusions he did.

Fittingly he was someone with almost no believe in statistics saying that "you could prove anything with statistics".
So what? Types can't be proven with statistics anyway, since they are all equally distributed from culture to culture, according to Jung from his world travels. I think he realized how pointless it was to even try to do this, with the millions of people on the planet in his times.

his came back to haunt him a little, since more recent psychological studies have shown that people with certain MBTI's do not commonly have any other traits than that obviously associated with the individual letters, i.e; an INTP will be more open ended than say an INTJ, who is likely to be more determined. But neither will necessarily be more disposed to make decisions based on logic or personal values (as would be suggested in the cognitive functions).
That's why you can't go by behavior to type someone. You have to go by general trends in observation about a person. There are a lot of theoretical type models and resources out there that are helpful for this. Jung's theory was psychoanalytical in nature - not behavioral. All of the stuff about open-endedness and close-endedness is behavioral and unsubstantiated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Okay, this was a presumptuous statement. First off, INTPs can have values, like anyone else, and not even Myers and Briggs disqualify this possibility. They are inferior Fe types - sure, they'll have values, but their values don't rule their decision-making, as in, they don't make value JUDGEMENTS to make decisions, which is the TRUE DEFINITION OF THE F FUNCTIONS. I think Myers and Briggs were aware of this. They included all of the conscious functions in their model. It's just that their system doesn't make the function-dynamics of each type very clear, since their theory is behavioral and not psychological in nature.
I don't see how, Albert Einstein, far from making inferior Fe decisions made them boldly and consistently. For example, choosing to buy 1,000 copies of the New Yorker when it published the Hiroshima piece by John Heresy, based on the human, subjective material with which the work dealt. Or choosing to become a vegetarian so as no to have living things killed unnecessarily, or frequently advocating pacifism. Thereby he could not be categorized as have an inferior Fe, or he would not make such decisions based on personal values.

Their function-dynamics is basically apologetic, they realize that people don't fit into the categories, thus they allow for anything. Why? Because their theory is half-baked at best.

I have no idea what this has to do with anything. Where's the evidence? Oh, that's right, there is none. Jung never even made such a statement. This is totally your fantasy. Are you implying that liberal politicians don't operate empirically?
This comes form Jung's type descriptions. What he noted on his subjects, their common traits, were either very general (able to apply to nearly all people) or obvious for anyone who has identified themselves as having a clear preference for one thing or the other. Those with N where more in favour of weed legislation and unconventional change. But this is obvious and suggests nothing of our psychology. Anyway, I was using an example, to show that there is no real depth to our so-called psychological types other than at surface level.

He didn't lump people into 16 categories if you actually study him. Briggs and Myers did that.
Ok fine, but it's a mute point. He tried to categorise people into 9 types, it's still an unfair and unjustified mechanisation of human nature. The number has no importance. Or maybe you think it does?

No, he actually observed mental patients to come to many, many of the conclusions he did.
So? I never said otherwise. I was saying that he had little to start with. A lot of Jung's work was important for the field of psychology. He just ran into a lot of errors. The earliest physicists came to a lot of over-generalities that were later disproved, even though they were grounded in scientific methodology, the conclusions were premature. I'm not saying that all of Jung was a bad scientist, but I believe is personality typology was premature.

Fittingly he was someone with almost no believe in statistics saying that "you could prove anything with statistics".
So what? Types can't be proven with statistics anyway, since they are all equally distributed from culture to culture, according to Jung from his world travels. I think he realized how pointless it was to even try to do this, with the millions of people on the planet in his times.
this came back to haunt him a little, since more recent psychological studies have shown that people with certain MBTI's do not commonly have any other traits than that obviously associated with the individual letters, i.e; an INTP will be more open ended than say an INTJ, who is likely to be more determined. But neither will necessarily be more disposed to make decisions based on logic or personal values (as would be suggested in the cognitive functions).


That's why you can't go by behavior to type someone. You have to go by general trends in observation about a person. There are a lot of theoretical type models and resources out there that are helpful for this. Jung's theory was psychoanalytical in nature - not behavioral. All of the stuff about open-endedness and close-endedness is behavioral and unsubstantiated.
That's basically what I'm trying to say, the behavioural, cognitive-functions are unjustified and frankly, wrong. But I think that what was mainly over-looked by Jung is the adaptability of human behaviour and the potential for events and even thoughts to change the way a person makes decisions or looks at the world. This means that categorizing is fairly futile affair.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,382 Posts
@Heresy

Okay, inferior doesn't mean bad according to Jung - it's just the part of the person's cognitive function preferences that they tend to have the most issues with, relative to their OWN higher functions. You need to study this stuff more - I'm not wasting my time educating you on the basics (e.g. T types can make value-based decisions, etc.). Jung actually categorized people into 32 types, I think. I'm against legalizing weed, btw, and I'm still an N dominant type none-the-less. I never made that decision based on my loyalty to a political party. I just have issues with drugs based on current affairs and stuff I really don't need to get into here.
 

·
MOTM August 2012
Joined
·
3,467 Posts
That's basically what I'm trying to say, the behavioural, cognitive-functions are unjustified and frankly, wrong. But I think that what was mainly over-looked by Jung is the adaptability of human behaviour and the potential for events and even thoughts to change the way a person makes decisions or looks at the world. This means that categorizing is fairly futile affair.
You have to read more Jung. He specifically did not over look the adaptability of human behavior. Jung dealt with people who had pathologies first and foremost. People with real problems and fully understood the nuance of the human experience. To him the cognitive functions were just a way of codifying mental processes, not the sum total of the psyche. Its MBTI that jumps off the CF cliff and tries to make all behavior the result of functions. Psychological Types is just one of Jung's early works, and even then he (as well as modern Jungians) basically downplay the typology focusing either on the Inferior function, or the conscious/unconscious influences. Jung himself would wait, sometimes years before saying definitively that someone was such-and-such a type (including himself). He was far more likely to declare someone under the influence of Anima or Animus than their type.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
I know that T can make value based decisions etc. but I think that the level at which individuals such as Einstein made value-based decisions can't really mean that he'll can comfortably be categorized as T, though obviously he preferred technical subjects.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
You have to read more Jung. He specifically did not over look the adaptability of human behavior. Jung dealt with people who had pathologies first and foremost. People with real problems and fully understood the nuance of the human experience. To him the cognitive functions were just a way of codifying mental processes, not the sum total of the psyche. Its MBTI that jumps off the CF cliff and tries to make all behavior the result of functions. Psychological Types is just one of Jung's early works, and even then he (as well as modern Jungians) basically downplay the typology focusing either on the Inferior function, or the conscious/unconscious influences. Jung himself would wait, sometimes years before saying definitively that someone was such-and-such a type (including himself). He was far more likely to declare someone under the influence of Anima or Animus than their type.
I'll pledge to stick to slating Myers-Briggs then until I read some more Jung. I'm still having problems with the typology as being far too simple. Either it can be used to explain human nature on some level or its wholly delusional.
 

·
MOTM August 2012
Joined
·
3,467 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,516 Posts
something just occurred to me. why can the mind itself not be an entity that evolves over time, such as ideas and what not being stored within the collective unconcious and this leading to a "change" or a certain "refinement" of the human psyche's to come in the future? what if certain cultural standards effect the structuring of the psyche, or even over time certain standards can bleed over to other parts of the world and now this "idea" may be able to permeate the barriers between cultures, to become ingrained within humans to a point at which this "notion" becomes something integral to the mind of a human being? i mean, how did all of this become to be in the first place? can it not be added to--shaped--can the mind not evolve right along with society (over time that is)? if it can, if it is "ever expanding" (like the universe), then it won't ever be something that we can readily label or understand, and it's definitely not something that can be studied to any great extent if those studying it begin to narrow their own view on what it is they're dealing with.

i mean, who's to say that an idea cannot run rampant in the minds of people, that it cannot have a recursive-like effect that builds a new aspect to the human mind (or this could be a "run-on" of the same aspect--something old that is guised behind one of the un-changing cogs of the mind). or maybe that in itself is an in-born facet to the human mind: our ability to attempt to see everything as a continuation or variable on the "same-old-thing", and once we realize this (maybe on an individual level at first) we may be able to build new "facets"--we have to realize what we're doing before we can do anything differently? our view of what we're looking at isn't actually reality to begin with, just our interpretation of it and our attempt to figure out what is infront of us through an extremely subjective lens because we can not fathom anything outside of it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
something just occurred to me. why can the mind itself not be an entity that evolves over time, such as ideas and what not being stored within the collective unconcious and this leading to a "change" or a certain "refinement" of the human psyche's to come in the future? what if certain cultural standards effect the structuring of the psyche, or even over time certain standards can bleed over to other parts of the world and now this "idea" may be able to permeate the barriers between cultures, to become ingrained within humans to a point at which this "notion" becomes something integral to the mind of a human being? i mean, how did all of this become to be in the first place? can it not be added to--shaped--can the mind not evolve right along with society (over time that is)? if it can, if it is "ever expanding" (like the universe), then it won't ever be something that we can readily label or understand, and it's definitely not something that can be studied to any great extent if those studying it begin to narrow their own view on what it is they're dealing with.

i mean, who's to say that an idea cannot run rampant in the minds of people, that it cannot have a recursive-like effect that builds a new aspect to the human mind (or this could be a "run-on" of the same aspect--something old that is guised behind one of the un-changing cogs of the mind). or maybe that in itself is an in-born facet to the human mind: our ability to attempt to see everything as a continuation or variable on the "same-old-thing", and once we realize this (maybe on an individual level at first) we may be able to build new "facets"--we have to realize what we're doing before we can do anything differently? our view of what we're looking at isn't actually reality to begin with, just our interpretation of it and our attempt to figure out what is infront of us through an extremely subjective lens because we can not fathom anything outside of it?
This just shows how important perception is. You can say that we're all the same or you can class humans into 10, 100 or a million types (so long as they're adaptable and open to perception enough themselves). It's a tool at best, but certainly not a full-proof one, there's simply too much about personality and the human mind that we don't know yet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
757 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
I don't understand. All I asked for was some support for the theory. Is there any harm in that?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,114 Posts
I know that T can make value based decisions etc. but I think that the level at which individuals such as Einstein made value-based decisions can't really mean that he'll can comfortably be categorized as T, though obviously he preferred technical subjects.
This sounds more like a problem with your personal intepretation of cognitive functions.

Exactly what is a definable level of value based decisions that would constitute either a thinking or feeling function?

Grunfur I don't believe you will find much empirical evidence for this theory. It has already been stated as to why.

There is no hard evidence for or against it, you could say that puts it in line with a mere belief, but for me the importance should be placed on it's application.

MBTI has quite a few flaws unfortunately, few theories dont; in fact none can avoid them, instead I would advise a closer look at Jung's own work. Even there of course you might say there is a similar issue, but as mentioned by others in this thread, he accepted the need for leeway when it came to human variability.

I might ask you a question here though: For what purpose would hard proof serve? The thing is no one is saying you must blindly adhere to MBTI or Jung's work, we are all here for our own reasons and we often all have our own interpretations, but agreement upon the catagorisation of the functions can serve a purpose in helping bridge gaps between people. Incidentally that question wasn't rhetorical. Im genuinely curious about how you would accurately and correctly measure someone's personality, while avoiding pitfalls such as persona's.

Imagine if it were an ideology, then like any ideology the problem is in it's usage, not necessarily in the core of what it intends to be or explain. Some ideologies have clearly been twisted into a slant on what are commonly accepted roles of good or evil, but many remain neutral, this would be such a one.

The sterotypes and blatent generalisations that have come about from misappropriations of this system are an example of how not to use it.

If you want I could spend some time researching any harder evidence for the cognitive functions. But essentially Jung was putting terms to observable traits or rather preferences in humans. The fact that people can agree on them at all is either evidence of a big cognitive biased delusion or intangible proof that there is something there to be observed.

I know this isn't a satisfying answer, but it's the best one I can think of for now. I make it sound like a religion hah, except I dont worship it. I just think it has both merits and flaws.

ps: How ironic would it be if someone made an argument about the Ni dom's defending this theory because it panders to them?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Heresy
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top