Are Psychological Metrics Impeding Growth?

[Fragment]

There are numerous theories of personality--each with their purported degree of accuracy and precision--based upon anecdotes, empiricism, conjecture, or a mix of these factors. Some have become a mainstay in actual psychological pedagogy, nominally the Big 5, while others remain fringe science. All of them have one common goal: to succinctly and adequately determine facets of personality that are measurable and predictable within the theory's paradigm.

Yet what does the individual gain from these metrics? In the Big 5, traits are seen to be relatively stable and largely immutable; thus, "knowing" the degree of which traits you or another displays will only serve as a marker of sorts, giving you or others an idea of what to expect. For the individual, they existed as they are prior to the tests' administration and will likely, according to the Big 5, continue to function in much the same fashion. Now, however, enters in the chance for peigenholing.

From my short time here, I've witnessed certain individuals (who shall remain nameless as the shitstorm abound here seems not to need any furtherance) embody their types to a degree that seems almost satirical. What's "worse" is that they expect certain behaviors from duals/conflictors, which seems to overly influence their perception of an individual. Having little if any standardization in terms of typing the process, people are far more likely to be mistyped, yet there is little if any conception of what constitutes a mistyping because of said ad-hoc typing process.

This, however, is not a shot at socionics or the Big 5; I have used these as only examples. I believe most psychological metrics to be self-limiting and moot, unless used to determine some underlying pathology. But in the absence of presumed pathology, which can only be assessed by licensed professionals, is there really a need for any of these delineations?

Before someone asks the nearly inevitable, "then why are you here;" I find these theories viscerally interesting yet throw a mental blockade up to prevent me from applying it, if at all.

[Roro]

Of course it can limit growth; but perhaps, given the right mindset, it can allow for progress. It's like, for instance, the comparison between theism and atheism. Who knows whether X is true or false, it can't really be proven, there's only the possibility that it could be true, it could be false, or it could be that numerous possibilities are valid in their own way. But it's difficult to argue the opposite point of view with a closed, radical mindset. How would I have responded to this thread five years ago, or five years from now? The theory is nice, and I find it interesting to try to peg people down and fit them into potential types based on interactions - but maybe we are or aren't meant to be one.

[xerx]

It was indelibly helpful for me at the outset, though a too-static self-perception probably does stymie change after the initial phase of self-recognition, engendering a predictable and hollow interaction with self and others.

I think the key is to recognize that any given typology isn't likely to be a panacea ---- most take liberties in flirting with pseudoscience in any case ---- but could serve as a focus for introspection & theory of mind by adding resolution to certain cognitive & personality traits.

[lemontrees]

I think the interesting thing about socionics is that it tempted me to try to imitate the traits of other types that I wanted to acquire.

I found myself developing my role, trying to fake Te (huge mistake), or attempting to mask myself as my own dual.

I have no idea who I am anymore. But that seems to be the best place to be.

[Esaman]

Defined "innate" weaknesses and strengths might cause some to do nothing about either. Accept and pander to ones shortcomings and overestimate and not actually work with/on ones strengths.
The information is also significant enough to potentially have important payouts.
I do believe the theory is hard to constructively apply/not abuse but that would be telling something about capabilities and vices of myself not about truth value of the theory.

[wacey]

Whose growth? The people you are talking about, or your own? How can you be so sure anyone who participates here has had their growth impeded? How can you be so certain that the the world is as you perceive it to be? How can you be so certain the forum is as you say it is, that what is happening here is how you see it happening?

Wouldn't it be better instead to say that psychological metrics are perhaps impeding your growth?

As to people seeming to embody their type. One, maybe socionics is relevant because it is actually explaining something that is actually occurring and the coincidences are more then just coincidences and/or two; you haven't been a member here long enough to experience consciously lived inter-type relationships long enough to have an adequete opinion born from experience. Meaning, just wait until you get into some inter-type tiff, or synchronicity with other members.

At a certain point I gave up it up as well and just keep on as a hobby. It pays dividends in surprising, subtle ways.

[Pookie]

Any one thing can impede growth. Just as any one thing can incite growth. If someone is not growing, it is likely their own fault.

[woofwoofl]

There are numerous theories of personality--each with their purported degree of accuracy and precision--based upon anecdotes, empiricism, conjecture, or a mix of these factors. Some have become a mainstay in actual psychological pedagogy, nominally the Big 5, while others remain fringe science. All of them have one common goal: to succinctly and adequately determine facets of personality that are measurable and predictable within the theory's paradigm.

Yet what does the individual gain from these metrics? In the Big 5, traits are seen to be relatively stable and largely immutable; thus, "knowing" the degree of which traits you or another displays will only serve as a marker of sorts, giving you or others an idea of what to expect. For the individual, they existed as they are prior to the tests' administration and will likely, according to the Big 5, continue to function in much the same fashion. Now, however, enters in the chance for peigenholing.

From my short time here, I've witnessed certain individuals (who shall remain nameless as the shitstorm abound here seems not to need any furtherance) embody their types to a degree that seems almost satirical. What's "worse" is that they expect certain behaviors from duals/conflictors, which seems to overly influence their perception of an individual. Having little if any standardization in terms of typing the process, people are far more likely to be mistyped, yet there is little if any conception of what constitutes a mistyping because of said ad-hoc typing process.

This, however, is not a shot at socionics or the Big 5; I have used these as only examples. I believe most psychological metrics to be self-limiting and moot, unless used to determine some underlying pathology. But in the absence of presumed pathology, which can only be assessed by licensed professionals, is there really a need for any of these delineations?

Before someone asks the nearly inevitable, "then why are you here;" I find these theories viscerally interesting yet throw a mental blockade up to prevent me from applying it, if at all.

I'll leave a post in the woofsoc thread once I get it all sorted out, but most of my interest is in groups made of the following; elemental/rational, positivist/negativist, process/result, asking/narrative, and static/dynamic. Less "typing" anyone from here until the end of time, more figuring out what sorts of usable rationale I overlook, other people overlook, and entire societies and generations overlook. I came across this post again, and though only an hour or so has passed between now and the first time I dug into what "Bayesian" means, positivist/result/narrative seems to fit (positivist/result has also been classed as stochastic and vortical-synergetic by Gulenko). Which makes me wonder how this carries over to ESE...

As for the drama queen type-theater shit, it sucks for people to define themselves so strongly by limitations that may not even need to be there, and it sucks ten-thousand times more for people to play-act new ones. No one's being done any real favors by that shit. Once you find out what's in your way, time to start on being free. I'm also wary of assumptions of "the perfect person", and that a presence of inherent flaws is what keeps any/everyone from being some universally perfect human being. Heat-death of the universe is perfect too.

[Aylen]

I only explore personality theories under the guidance of good psychologists these day. So far they see no problems with it and actually think this stuff, along with some spiritual stuff, has helped me a lot. I had a therapist who agreed with the concept of me being INFJ in MBTI but she knew I was not attached to that label and we kind of used it as a point of reference when discussing ideas, on occasion. I noticed that I have a way of swaying all my therapists into almost believing in some kind of magic in this world, which I find interesting. I probably analyze them more than they analyze me since I often get them to open up about their own unusual experience, after we have established trust between us.

I joined this site at the suggestion of another therapist and a google synchronicity. She basically wanted me to get out of my head and do something creative with my thoughts so that I didn't lose touch with... humanity. Before I started seeing therapists, I was too into my own version of this world which involved a lot of intense interactions with people I should have stayed away from.

Anyway, I can't say what others experience as "growth". I don't even like the term growth in relation to my experiences but if I look at it all objectively I can say I have deeper understanding of myself and others, in part, due to my participation here and other forums. Even if I think someone has mistyped themselves it does not impede my own "growth" in any way. I am going to perceive them and our interaction in the way that suits me best, even if that means I view our interactions as a different type of intertype relations than they do. I assume they are getting whatever they need out of it and when we no longer want or need that type of interaction we both move on and it is easy to let go once I understand what the experience added to my self knowledge.

Socionics is kind of a pit stop in the grand scheme of my life.

[Fragment]

Thankx for the replies guys. I'll get back to replying tomorrow. I got busy and would like to answer some of these with the attention they deserve as opposed to BS replying.