The Many
11-30-2007, 12:26 AM
The following post is quoted, and modified, from what I call my “basic philosophy”, which is a document where I have compiled my worldview. It is still somewhat developing, but I have ideas for a couple of books to write already. So, here we go… and I expect the debate following here to last for a long time.
___
In pure, unbothered happiness, no human being would really need to think at all – yet we are, at the core, one unhappy kind of monkeys. One questions and needs to understand when one cannot find solace in the ordinary. Some, of insecure nature as we may be (or perhaps, have been), may need to understand for the sake of being able to live. This applies to the elite man of Ortega, that is to say, most often the Rationals as described by Myers-Briggs – in particular; the INTJ:s (as I personally may be picked out to be), but also to some extent the INTP:s. A confident appearance more often than not reveals an insecure core, the further one does look into it.
Why?
To answer, one needs to look at the development of the soul-self* and its temperament. Knowledge extends so far as to state that, for instance, empathy (and its extent) as a function is inborn (for instance we know that the brains of people suffering from Antisocial Personality Disorder often lack certain parts of their frontal lobes); just as we see that various hormones exist to various extents within various individuals (I am here primarily thinking of testosterone, which is often a driving force among men). Introverted persons have also been found to use different parts of the brain than extraverted persons; so from this basis, we can conclude that certain features at least appear to be biological and inborn. Also, of course, ones actual physique (ones height, weight, looks etc), as well as ones physical gender obviously does influence one – they may easily give rise to insecurities which may be very hard to shrug off.
Add to this the amount of perceptions and how easily a subject may cope with their circumstances; there are quite some elements to take into account when measuring personality traits – not to mention such traits as imagination and creativity, which appears to be inborn as well. Worth noticing is however that there are no such things as “extraverted thinking”, “introverted sensing”, or whatever – merely poorly evolved imaginations; or thinking used in different manners depending on what a person may find pleasing. All thinking really takes the form as shown by the Kantian categories in that it is the organization of ones perceptions; it is however influenced (and used) to various amounts by various persons. For, at the core of the soul-self lies actual thinking, which in term may be influenced by sensations and emotions, and even influences at least emotions itself.
That thought always could be just as introverted as extroverted is a fact, and also, I’m afraid, what destroys the MBTI theory. If I was to rate the way I usually use my “cognitive functions” according to the MBTI, my mind would work as follows:
Ni
Te
Ti
Fi
Se
Ne
Fe
Si
Clearly not even my very own ”decision making process” is compatible with the MBTI system – whichever shape it may take. Instead, it has developed through internal predispositions clashing with external circumstances into what which when overtly simplified may be described as an INTJ temper – which it, however, as seen from the above mentioned description, does not agree with MBTI theory. And, as Popper’s theory of falsifiability will have it (and I agree), one case is enough prove a hypothesis wrong... Yet still I know others whose thinking simply does not conform to these categorizations, and I am quite sure that, with enough critical thinking, most of you will find truths relating to yourselves that the MBTI does not, in fact, explain all of your behaviour. In fact, the Forer effect is often used to criticize the MBTI system/s, and this criticism is most definitely deserved. Often people (especially of poor social skills who will feel relieved by this kind of categorization) will take their result and mold it around four letters – a development which usually is not particularly healthy, and most often false since it does not actually describe their full personalities.
In fact, the Forer effect also explains the problem with INT_:s – they do exist; the problem with the MBTI is that it is not diverse enough to explain people who sometimes judge and plan, and sometimes do not. The more devoted adherers to the system will however defend these “forms”, often probably due to having grown too accustomed to identifying themselves with it, and thus not seeing the forest for all the trees in their way.
Yet still, with this nature/nurture correlation given (and just to clarify; I have no new system developed here; subjective people are simply too complex to fully comprehend with one system like this), it is still obvious enough that, for instance, someone born with an emotional/empathic temperament, who has grown up in a secure and happy environment will be quite happy and balanced – whilst on the other hand, a less fortunate person, someone who does not feel as much, yet still has to build a good self-image will have to get there through other means; of these the mind is one – when both ones imaginative and logical faculties are highly evolved, it is obvious enough that these will be used by most “Rationals” to understand and interpret their realities. This search for a self-image takes other forms in others than Rationals, however – for instance Guardians, who tend to gravitate to social norms. Does this have to do with “sensing” external attitudes? No; only with the fact that their imaginations are not particularly evolved…
So, what use is then the MBTI, when its theory is refuted? No scientific one, that much is true, yet as to describe differences between people; between behavior and between reactions – as broader categories they may prove invaluable to those who need to understand their surroundings to be able to deal with them. As broad generalizations, seeing the difference between people being, for example, primarily “Feeling” or primarily “Thinking” may give much-needed social clues to those in need of it.
* With “soul-self” I mean an individual’s self-conscious mind; which has more importance in other parts of my philosophy.
___
In pure, unbothered happiness, no human being would really need to think at all – yet we are, at the core, one unhappy kind of monkeys. One questions and needs to understand when one cannot find solace in the ordinary. Some, of insecure nature as we may be (or perhaps, have been), may need to understand for the sake of being able to live. This applies to the elite man of Ortega, that is to say, most often the Rationals as described by Myers-Briggs – in particular; the INTJ:s (as I personally may be picked out to be), but also to some extent the INTP:s. A confident appearance more often than not reveals an insecure core, the further one does look into it.
Why?
To answer, one needs to look at the development of the soul-self* and its temperament. Knowledge extends so far as to state that, for instance, empathy (and its extent) as a function is inborn (for instance we know that the brains of people suffering from Antisocial Personality Disorder often lack certain parts of their frontal lobes); just as we see that various hormones exist to various extents within various individuals (I am here primarily thinking of testosterone, which is often a driving force among men). Introverted persons have also been found to use different parts of the brain than extraverted persons; so from this basis, we can conclude that certain features at least appear to be biological and inborn. Also, of course, ones actual physique (ones height, weight, looks etc), as well as ones physical gender obviously does influence one – they may easily give rise to insecurities which may be very hard to shrug off.
Add to this the amount of perceptions and how easily a subject may cope with their circumstances; there are quite some elements to take into account when measuring personality traits – not to mention such traits as imagination and creativity, which appears to be inborn as well. Worth noticing is however that there are no such things as “extraverted thinking”, “introverted sensing”, or whatever – merely poorly evolved imaginations; or thinking used in different manners depending on what a person may find pleasing. All thinking really takes the form as shown by the Kantian categories in that it is the organization of ones perceptions; it is however influenced (and used) to various amounts by various persons. For, at the core of the soul-self lies actual thinking, which in term may be influenced by sensations and emotions, and even influences at least emotions itself.
That thought always could be just as introverted as extroverted is a fact, and also, I’m afraid, what destroys the MBTI theory. If I was to rate the way I usually use my “cognitive functions” according to the MBTI, my mind would work as follows:
Ni
Te
Ti
Fi
Se
Ne
Fe
Si
Clearly not even my very own ”decision making process” is compatible with the MBTI system – whichever shape it may take. Instead, it has developed through internal predispositions clashing with external circumstances into what which when overtly simplified may be described as an INTJ temper – which it, however, as seen from the above mentioned description, does not agree with MBTI theory. And, as Popper’s theory of falsifiability will have it (and I agree), one case is enough prove a hypothesis wrong... Yet still I know others whose thinking simply does not conform to these categorizations, and I am quite sure that, with enough critical thinking, most of you will find truths relating to yourselves that the MBTI does not, in fact, explain all of your behaviour. In fact, the Forer effect is often used to criticize the MBTI system/s, and this criticism is most definitely deserved. Often people (especially of poor social skills who will feel relieved by this kind of categorization) will take their result and mold it around four letters – a development which usually is not particularly healthy, and most often false since it does not actually describe their full personalities.
In fact, the Forer effect also explains the problem with INT_:s – they do exist; the problem with the MBTI is that it is not diverse enough to explain people who sometimes judge and plan, and sometimes do not. The more devoted adherers to the system will however defend these “forms”, often probably due to having grown too accustomed to identifying themselves with it, and thus not seeing the forest for all the trees in their way.
Yet still, with this nature/nurture correlation given (and just to clarify; I have no new system developed here; subjective people are simply too complex to fully comprehend with one system like this), it is still obvious enough that, for instance, someone born with an emotional/empathic temperament, who has grown up in a secure and happy environment will be quite happy and balanced – whilst on the other hand, a less fortunate person, someone who does not feel as much, yet still has to build a good self-image will have to get there through other means; of these the mind is one – when both ones imaginative and logical faculties are highly evolved, it is obvious enough that these will be used by most “Rationals” to understand and interpret their realities. This search for a self-image takes other forms in others than Rationals, however – for instance Guardians, who tend to gravitate to social norms. Does this have to do with “sensing” external attitudes? No; only with the fact that their imaginations are not particularly evolved…
So, what use is then the MBTI, when its theory is refuted? No scientific one, that much is true, yet as to describe differences between people; between behavior and between reactions – as broader categories they may prove invaluable to those who need to understand their surroundings to be able to deal with them. As broad generalizations, seeing the difference between people being, for example, primarily “Feeling” or primarily “Thinking” may give much-needed social clues to those in need of it.
* With “soul-self” I mean an individual’s self-conscious mind; which has more importance in other parts of my philosophy.