Is typology inherently a Fe/Ti mindset?

[Whoobie77]

This is something I've been thinking for awhile. On an MBTI site, Personality Junkie, I read, "FPs, as well as some TJs, may protest against what they see as Ti-Fe attempts to “pigeonhole” them in human classification systems like typology...Fe focuses on human dynamics and human systems. Typology is a good example of an Fe approach, one which has the overall goal of improving human relations." Jungian typology starts with axioms and deduces from there. With little attention paid to induction or empirical evidence. If you read the Stratievskaya ENTj description, it sounds like they should hate typology. "LIEs understand easily, but are largely indifferent to, discussions that focus on the internal logic of ideas and systems. They perceive such logical systems as largely worthless..."

I ask because I seemingly have no problem in holding both Ti and Fi processes in my head. I have my own valued "canon" of artworks I find beautiful. But, I can look at a set of deductive principles and can appreciate the power of reason employed.

Thoughts?

[consentingadult]

In MBTI, functions such as Fe are so vaguely defined that they can be used to prove anything. I would not make too much of it.

Imho, there are two types of people that protest against pigeonholing: people with low intelligence (MBTI has a intelligenge bias for intuitives) who in general are skeptical of scientific knowledge, and more scientifically oriented people who write off any typology as Forer Effect, because in their experience they have seen it all before (and often were right).

[Radio]

Ti cannot exist without Te, and vice versa. Ti and Te are only different inclinations of the same function. So, no.

But to answer your question, yes, the excessive attention to the theoretical underpinnings of Model A in Socionics is Fe/Ti > Fi/Te. But there are other aspects to typology that lean more towards Fi/Te, like VI (arguably).

And Enneagram, on the contrary, is very Te-heavy.

So, again, no.

[chemical]

Pigeonholing people is something Te types can do plenty well.

Regarding the general idea of your question, I'd say it is helpful to note how unrealistic it is for someone to use two functions well and essentially ignore one of the two versions of each. You should think that when it comes to practical functioning all the 4 versions in total play their role (to differing degrees in different individuals though), but what differs is the aim of the cognitive processes.

The type is more a predominance of introversion over extraversion, but the realistic picture is that first one happens, then another, until some conclusion is established, and to say someone favors introverted thinking or extraverted thinking is largely what is determining this establishment along with what motivated the thinking's beginning rather than whether the attention remained squarely on one side throughout. I'd say many ILI and LIE will accept Ti information if it doesn't start seeming like Ti-ing is becoming an end in and of itself, and that there's a chance to get back to Te/Ni. I'd say it holds true in experience for me that your ignoring function can be much more frustrating than the demonstrative. This likely depends how attached to your base you are.

[Pookie]

I think the subjectivity involved in typology, and the lack of really any real objective data makes it more attractive to Fe/Ti types. As the merry quadras are also known as the subjectives, it makes sense that something as ephemeral and playful as typology is something Fe/Ti excels in.

[strangeling]

Jungian typology starts with axioms and deduces from there. With little attention paid to induction or empirical evidence.

FTR, this isn't true. Jung's typology was founded on heavy philosophical principles, but he empirically validated almost all of it. It's more a problem about what the theoretical limitations of the typology are, rather than whether it is valid. A lot of people use them differently and attest to attaining different kinds of understanding.

Thoughts?

I think Jung's typology was an attempt to solve the problem of understanding the subjectivity of the human mind because when subjectivity is involved, objective methods aren't applicable - hence why psychology becomes a soft science. That said, I think the typology represents a philosophical foundation for a lot of concepts that are a part of our reality. But how people see, use, and are a part of these concepts depends on how they filter them through consciousness. For example, an Ni leading might see Jung's types as providing a framework for archetypes that are complex, nuanced, and different from person to person, whereas a Ti leading might use it as a classification system that doesn't consider individual differences. That said, MBTI does have a problem with being used that way, which I think creates a rub of being superficial and it's easy to get turned off by it.

[Whoobie77]

Imho, there are two types of people that protest against pigeonholing: people with low intelligence (MBTI has a intelligenge bias for intuitives) who in general are skeptical of scientific knowledge

The first part of what you said is wrong:
http://www.celebritytypes.com/blog/2...nst-sensation/

even if the masses of amateurs who write on the subject seem to think this, Intuitive types are not inherently more intelligent than Sensors. In fact, I would posit that the "world's smartest man" (Chris Langan) is an LSI. And the second part of what you said seems to conflate skepticism of science with low intelligence in all cases. Again I think this is wrong; Arthur Schopenhauer was skeptical of science, for example, and his IQ was estimated to be around 185.

FTR, this isn't true. Jung's typology was founded on heavy philosophical principles, but he empirically validated almost all of it. It's more a problem about what the theoretical limitations of the typology are, rather than whether it is valid. A lot of people use them differently and attest to attaining different kinds of understanding.

Even if that's true, Jung wrote Psychological Types in 1922. Just because it was empirically valid by 1922 standards means little. A lot has changed in psychology in over 90+ years. Now, the dichotomies are somewhat unrealistic. They should be distributed along a curve rather than bimodality.

. But there are other aspects to typology that lean more towards Fi/Te, like VI (arguably).

really? wouldn't they be more prone just to write it off as a psuedoscience like phrenology? If you're talking about facial tics or the like, perhaps...but those aren't very well established.

.And Enneagram, on the contrary, is very Te-heavy.

how do you figure?

[mu4]

I think the subjectivity involved in typology, and the lack of really any real objective data makes it more attractive to Fe/Ti types. As the merry quadras are also known as the subjectives, it makes sense that something as ephemeral and playful as typology is something Fe/Ti excels in.

Socionics is not only typology, it's also cognitive science and sociology in the same framework. Cognition in it's very nature is "subjective" but that word really has no problem here as what is being discussed is the "nature of subjectivity". Delving into it necessarily require awareness of subjectivity and a sort of honest respect for it. However the goal for some is to create a objective basis for the diversity of subjectivity and cognition.

Cognitive science as a predicate views subjectivity as important and a worthwhile investigation, treating subjectivity as something to be analyzed rather than eliminated. People use subjectivity and objectivity without really understand what is really desired in cognitive science. Whether you call socionics Heterophenomenology (Daniel Dennett) or Intersubjectivity (various) is up to you, but it is beyond typology as far as it's philosophical basis. People just need to get their head out of the stupid objectivity subjectivity debate, it's freaking sophmoric.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterophenomenology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersubjectivity

Stuff like Big 5/Big-data analytics/Marketing research is straight up empirical and very focused. A lot of Typology as far as what people use and talk about is basically empirical and based.

Socionics like my favorite football club is more, it is "mes que un typology".

[some chair]

The first part of what you said is wrong:
http://www.celebritytypes.com/blog/2...nst-sensation/

even if the masses of amateurs who write on the subject seem to think this, Intuitive types are not inherently more intelligent than Sensors. In fact, I would posit that the "world's smartest man" (Chris Langan) is an LSI.

I don't know, I found two papers supporting the claim that MBTI N and general intelligence are correlated. Curiously one of them found a really small negative correlation between MBTI T and g . Obviously that's just two papers though.

And the second part of what you said seems to conflate skepticism of science with low intelligence in all cases. Again I think this is wrong; Arthur Schopenhauer was skeptical of science, for example, and his IQ was estimated to be around 185.

This I can agree with. Less intelligent people might be skeptical because it's an idea in the people and informational sources around them. More intelligent people might have rational epistemic concerns about the cult of science, the sociological forces that shape how it produces knowledge, what knowledge it produces, or the sometimes bizarre (lookin' at you, frequentist inference) reasoning processes embedded in it. I think this goes both ways as well, and is the line between a skeptic and a skeptoid.

[Whoobie77]

I don't know, I found two papers supporting the claim that MBTI N and general intelligence are correlated. Curiously one of them found a really small negative correlation between MBTI T and g . Obviously that's just two papers though.

well, I guess I forgot to mention that I see the MBTI as inherently broken because it goes by the four dichotomies instead of by functions. Sometimes, though, MBTI is used as a synonym for "Jungian typology" which is kind of what I assumed consentingadult was saying here. Which is what I was doing as well. I meant, "this is what the theory actually says, not what a system which perpetuates mistyping would seem to point to". Hell, Jung basically typed Kant LSI, and on some days I can even see his rationale...

[Radio]

really? wouldn't they be more prone just to write it off as a psuedoscience like phrenology? If you're talking about facial tics or the like, perhaps...but those aren't very well established.

have you spoken to any Te types on this forum? edit: it would theoretically be Ti types who would write it off as pseudoscience as there is no underlying principle behind functions correlating to certain facial features and so forth (IME, it's either that or them considering it a happy coincidence if it works, or use it to gauge "an idea" of types but ultimately unreliable). Te is much more of an empirical function: the idea is that if it works, it works. don't necessarily need to know how. /simplified /generalizations

how do you figure?

well, for instance, if you read Naranjo, most of what he writes is an unstructured Te dump of him describing phenomenon with minimal focus on the internal structure of the system. in fact, i'd even say the types who have the most trouble with Enneagram initially are Ti-ego types, because there's so little apparent (or explicit) structure in the system that initially they seem reject it as bullshit.

[consentingadult]

The first part of what you said is wrong:
http://www.celebritytypes.com/blog/2...nst-sensation/

even if the masses of amateurs who write on the subject seem to think this, Intuitive types are not inherently more intelligent than Sensors. In fact, I would posit that the "world's smartest man" (Chris Langan) is an LSI. And the second part of what you said seems to conflate skepticism of science with low intelligence in all cases. Again I think this is wrong; Arthur Schopenhauer was skeptical of science, for example, and his IQ was estimated to be around 185.

Oh god, another know-it-all lacking the capacity for interpretation and taking a sociological perspective at thing, and using exceptions to the rules to prove other people wrong. You know what, I thing you must be a sensor for sure!

[InvisibleJim]

no,

But your point is important re. Action driven vis-a-vis Perception driven interaction.

[chemical]

Hell, Jung basically typed Kant LSI

I'm familiar with the Ti-dom part of that (and nobody ever seems to type Kant as anything but Ti-dom) but where did he say auxiliary sensation? Would be curious to know (and I'd not be terribly surprised by the way either by this, and it would be good information to have).

[Kpz]

This is something I've been thinking for awhile. On an MBTI site, Personality Junkie, I read, "FPs, as well as some TJs, may protest against what they see as Ti-Fe attempts to “pigeonhole” them in human classification systems like typology...Fe focuses on human dynamics and human systems. Typology is a good example of an Fe approach, one which has the overall goal of improving human relations." Jungian typology starts with axioms and deduces from there. With little attention paid to induction or empirical evidence. If you read the Stratievskaya ENTj description, it sounds like they should hate typology. "LIEs understand easily, but are largely indifferent to, discussions that focus on the internal logic of ideas and systems. They perceive such logical systems as largely worthless..."

I ask because I seemingly have no problem in holding both Ti and Fi processes in my head. I have my own valued "canon" of artworks I find beautiful. But, I can look at a set of deductive principles and can appreciate the power of reason employed.

Thoughts?

Typology is inherently a mindset.

[Olduvai]

Seeing as it deals with abstract concepts, I would say typology has more to do with intuition than anything else.