Personality types, language and communication

Zenomax
Peter, do you think different Jungian types would have different needs when it comes to communicating?

You seem to be suggesting that sensing types need the addition of visual and auditary stimulus to obtain the full benefits of communication.

I wonder if intuiting types therefore have an advantage here on LT in being able to understand more readily, simply from the written word.

copyedit52
Yes, I think different Jungian types process and subsequently understand reality in their own innate ways. Taking in language would be a part of that. The lack of visual stimuli would go along with it, and being at a loss while on the telephone could well be a clue as to someone's typology. Lack of auditory stimuli would no doubt affect certain people on the Internet more than others.

What complicates this analysis is that no one is just one type. According to Jung (and through self-observation I would agree), there are four degrees of types within each of us. And they're aligned in particular ways. The secondary characteristics in sensory and intuitive types are either the cognitive or emotive aspects of understanding. Thus, sensory types, like myself, are secondarily thought or emotive types, and then tertiary intuitive types, followed by their weakest aspect, which would be emotive or cognitive, depending on which aspect was the secondary one.

If you're an intuitive type, your secondary aspect would be cognitive or emotive, and if it was the latter, I think you'd have a great deal of difficulty wrestling with meaning on LT. (My secondary aspect is cognitive, which helps in this venue.) But if you truly are a primary intuitive type, you'd be flying by the seat of your pants anyway.

It should be noted that Gurdjieff, or at least what we know about his teachings through Ouspensky, spoke of three aspects: sensory, cognitive, and emotive, which are constantly interacting with each other, haphazardly throwing us out of whack if we don't carefully observe our inner selves to gauge where our reactions are coming from ... and he has intuition as something separate and apart (and by implication higher, and perhaps more "spiritual"), which we can aspire to, rather than carry within us as an innate determinant.

zenomax
Peter - I find this area fascinating. We may be getting away from language and more into ways of communicating here, but it is a rich area for discussion.

In Jungian terms I am an intovert-intuitive, and in Myers Briggs terms an INTJ.

As such, I find it easy to express opinions to strange people (in all meanings of the word) here on LT whereas I would be much more circumspect with a group of people in a room.

I also think introverts can be as prominent as extroverts in discussion groups on the internet. Whereas introverts probably used to rely on diaries to put their thoughts down, they now have forums where they can participate on an equal footing.

geneg
INTP. Just leave me alone!

EnriqueFreeque
INFJ myself. Sorry tomcat, geneg, er, zenomax, started it.

tomcatMurr
I have no idea what any of you are talking about, but you all seem happy so carry on.
Vodka? Herring?

anna_in_pdx
2. I had to take the Myers Briggs when I was in the Foreign Service and I was an ISFJ. I have worked over the years since then (this was in 1992) on becoming less judgmental particularly since I spend several years in Egypt as a management trainer and my tendency towards judging/evaluation got in the way of being an effective trainer. More recently (I think it was about 2005) I took the "Kiersey" online personality test and it was quite different (I don't remember it actually but I believe it was INFP).
3. I loved Jung as a young person and still find that it's a useful and compelling way of looking at how the psyche works. Personality type theory which draws from Jungian analysis, such as the Myers Briggs, is interesting as well and practical in some ways, as long as we remember that the personality type is neither fixed nor inevitable.

copyedit52
Anna: It's truly startling how many interesting people I've encountered, via the Internet and otherwise, in the past week alone from Portland, Oregon. Is this an example of nonverbal communication? I am a medieval character in that way (maybe I should pack my bags): I believe in omens, and take them quite seriously.

booksfallapart
My Myers Briggs and Keirsey types line up perfectly. I am ENFP: the "Champion".
flag abuse Post a message

copyedit52
The E and the I I can guess at, but if we're to continue in this secret language, can someone supply a key for those of us who don't know Myers Briggs? You know, like:

ENFP = Extroverted whatever
INTP = Introverted whatever
INFJ = Introverted whatever

... and so on.

anna_in_pdx
There are 4 pairs in the Myers Briggs
Extraverted vs. Introverted (E/I)
iNtuitive vs. Sensing (N/S)
Thinking vs. Feeling (T/F)
Judging vs. Perceptive (J/P)

Each person who takes the test gets typecast for the 4. So I am Introverted/Sensing/Feeling/Judging (or Perceptive if you count the later Kiersey I took). The Myers-Briggs has to be conducted by a qualified psychologist and is very long. The Kiersey is a simplified questionnaire, much shorter, available over the Internet that you can self-administer.

copyedit52
Thank you, Anna. Interesting, the "judging vs, perceptive," which are not Jungian categories. I should read up on this. Is there a book you'd recommend?

anna_in_pdx
Myers and Briggs wrote a book, I believe it came out in the 60s, which I skimmed. There are many books about personality type theory though.

I have enjoyed several pop psych types of books that are based on Jungian analysis, such as "Women who run with wolves" and "Goddesses in Everywoman". These are not deep but pretty fun to read. As for Jung himself I read Man and his Symbols and a couple of other books but that was when I was a kid.

zenomax
Apologies for starting this hijacking everyone, it is a fascination of mine, and we must get back to language and communication (see ~40).

But let me just post these for Peter and anyone else who is curious:

Myers Briggs: http://www.myersbriggs.org/
Keirsey: http://www.keirsey.com/

Nice to know some Salon members Myers Briggs personalities too - it helps in corresponding with you guys to have this understanding.

Perhaps the topic for somewhere else? Maybe the bigger Le Salon? Sorry Murr - back to business.

ETA: it is personality theory not hijacking which is my fascination.
Message edited by its author, Today, 7:32pm.

EnriqueFreeque
this book:

http://www.librarything.com/work/1986

incorporates the Myers-Briggs Inventory mentioned above.

I wonder if we ought to begin a thread discussing how different personality types acquire, process, & develop language differently?

tomcat is on it! Tha ManCat is an organizational beast!

TomcatMurr is truly inspirational. What is his Myers Briggs? I think he's an ISTJ - has to be!

Introverted, sensing, thinking, judgment type. I have to spell these things out, not being as with it as you guys. I don't know tomcat all that well, but introverted? Really?

Now that I think about it, without going any further into whether tomcat is or is not an introvert, perhaps in a virtual forum such as this, and others, the types we identify in face-to-face interaction--the so-called real world--can function otherwise, since when we're just communicating in words, without gestures, verbal inflection, or the self-consciousness that inhibit people "out there."

Rewritten at 11:34 p.m.: I see that you said essentially the same thing, Zenomax, three messages into this reconstituted thread. That as an introvert you find it easier to express opinions on LT rather than to people in a room. I'm a raving extrovert, both on LT and otherwise, so you can't judge by me. But take Zenomax, and Enrique (of all people!) who claimed he was an IMFJ, above. Though I do find this hard to believe about him. It would be Jekyll and Hyde all over again. And geneg, who is active all over LT, said he's an INTP. Unless he was just kidding: another outer world introvert? Is this a bizarro universe or what?

>5 copyedit52: Yes, this is interesting. I find myself perhaps contrary to my allegedly N and F, seat-of-pants nature, adopting online strategies in fora such as this in order to put myself across in roughly the same way I do as in real life. Things like emoticons/emoji, which I use extensively, but will always be intrinsically more composed/considered than a real-life smile . . . .

I don't know what I am. I'm just confused.

*Weeping bitterly*

Tomcat is obviously an extrovert...online - a hardcore extrovert, as I am (online), while in person, I'd say tomcat (since there's only two choices) would come out as an extrovert (barely) since he teaches and is in front of people all day (I presume) but unlike an extrovert, he still needs that quality time alone to recharge his mental and emotional batteries, and not to mention....to, um, like, you know, read. Totally.

My judgement on Murr in "real life": 51% extrovert / 49% introvert.

I actually am generally more introverted online. Offline, I pretty much have no mental/social filter - no thinking before speaking, because for me thinking is speaking, whether vocalized or otherwise - so I tend to veer on the side of extroverted, albeit extroverted and socially inappropriate. But because I have to type things out online, I have to give a second thought as to whether I should post at all - and it turns out that that second thought is often simply not to post. I am very shy online. I lurk in most places. I delete and edit posts chronically. I constantly second-guess: did I really need to share that anecdote about my yeast infection? What if my observation about Mahfouz makes me look really stupid? What if this person doesn't take kindly to my howdy? No, better simply to reserve myself and stick to my few contacts rather than seeking out any new ones... best to play it cool...

I've never made it through one of those personality tests so I'm not sure what four letters best describe me. I'm too paranoid to fill out all the questions and I'm also too forgetful to remember what the answers should be.

amaranthic (from the East Village, is it?): I recognize the description of withdrawal, second-guessing--mental hibernation, if you will--since I experience the same state of mind in the winter, up here where people actually do hibernate. I call it cabin fever, and that's no joke--it's an actual thing. Only it doesn't effect me on LT, or if it does, makes me go the other way, toward blurtatiousness.

I think that as a writer, my own conflicted extroversion--I say it, but then edit it, and edit it again, seeking perfection, for anything else seems embarrassing--is a driving force that works for me. And it certainly would explain why being a copy editor fits me so well. Which brings up something I was thinking about last night:

If for some, like Zenomax and the other supposed introverts around here (I confess that I'd actually have to meet them in person before I agree with that assessment, Myers Briggs notwithstanding) verbal expression without the accompanying inflections and cues is enhanced on LT, then perhaps we can say that writing itself is an exercise in extroversion. Else, why write at all? Why not keep it to yourself? And if we agree, or hypothesize, that some (or maybe a lot) of us can be introverts out there and extroverts (or at least less introverted) on LT, then surely we can say the same about authors.

So, how does one determine this? I mean, I'll posit that the narrative voice a writer chooses (either in the first or third person) might be a clue. And the actual life of the writer counts too, of course. Thus, I'll throw out two names: J.D. Salinger and Kafka. The first because of Holden Caulfield in Catcher in the Rye, and Salinger's heremetic life ever since he became famous. And Kafka because his written world would seem to be (I'm guessing) an introvert's nightmare; the world as the introvert/outsider would see it. And wasn't it Kafka who wanted a friend who inherited his work to burn an unpublished manuscript? Where would your head have to be at (an old East Village locution) to want to expunge your own work that way?

Not to derail the talk about authors and extroversion, but I really doubt Jungian, Myers-Briggs or any other type classification scheme correlates with language use because, statistically, they don't even correlate with their own results over long intervals. (Which is unsurprising, given the distribution of their results don't support their theoretical definitions of type.)

I demur, Murr is an INTJ.

Tomcat : please answer these simple questions

1) What kind of restaurants do you like ?

2) what ornaments do you have on your desk

3) what is your favourite car ?

4) what is the brand of your watch ?

~11 bjza you are absolutely right, personality theory is just that - an unverifiable theory. But it is used extensively in the business world and does have some value, at least in showing how people think and act differently because they (their personality) understand the world in a certain way.

It has helped me understand myself, and it has helped me understand that people who act in fundamentally different ways to me are not actually stupid or crazy, but are just different.

~ 10 Peter, you are throwing up some good points too. The one thing to understand about extroversion/introversion is that Jung (and those that have built on it) describe the difference between the two as being not that one is loud and the other quiet, but that the one needs to say what comes into their mind first, then think about it, the other the reverse. Also, extroverts get energy from talking and being in a group, introverts get energy from thinking and being alone. However introverts can still appear to be the life of the party, although it will sap their strength.

Now in a forum like this, an introvert's energy is not sapped (if my experience is anything to go by), so introverts can flourish on an equal footing with extroverts.

With regard to how introverts and extroverts process and develop language, I would guess that introverts have to process language more carefully and develop more thoroughly, because they have less opportunities to speak and need to 'get it right' when they do. Extroverts learn on the job (I am guessing) and refine as they need to.

>14 zenomax: I didn't know that, re your third paragraph. So interesting! Thank you.

Good point, booksfallapart. I didn't know that either: what it means to be introverted. Not being that type myself, I haven't gone into it internally.

But I'm also asking myself the value of typology vis-a-vis language and self-expression. Perhaps because those of us who relate to this mode of self-examination are being called upon, both openly and through tongue-of-cheek comments, to explain the validity to this approach.

So I'll say for myself, in the spirit of "Who am I?" which is a question I absolutely consider valid, that I'm not sure. That is, in using this one tool to look at myself, among other possibilities: How helpful is it? I'm not asking in order to figure out what kind of career I should pursue, based upon a test that purports to tell me whether I'd be good at this or that. Rather, I want to better understand how I function; what triggers my behavior--including, especially, what might lead me to operate in a mechanical, unexamined manner.

As a writer, or an editor, I'm not sure (again) whether typology has been helpful to me. In the realm of language and self-expression, problems I've had arose from doubting myself, which seems to me a larger issue than the mode in which I happen to operate.

16: I used my typology to try to grow as a person and also to tailor my communication styles to others who were obviously different from me (e.g., obvious extraverts when I am an obvious introvert). As I mentioned before, I think I was able to move along the J/P continuum in the P direction. This is not so much a change of my core personality as it is an enhancement of my abilities to shift style when it's useful or appropriate. It's particularly useful for communicating with others but it has also been really helpful for me to become happier and more sure of myself.

I think any tool that helps me to understand myself better is good and useful. The personality type theory is a good starting point as long as you see it as a starting point and not a straitjacket.

That brings back memories, Anna, of a time when I was indeed introverted, through circumstance, at the end of the psychedelic year I write about in I Think, Therefore Who Am I? I think this is appropriate for the discussion, from the follow-up work-in-progress, Digging Deeper:

... I first had to relearn those basic skills of communication. For weeks, when I first came to the office, I was mute. The drugs I’d taken, which I supposed were still sloshing around in my brain, made it difficult for me to even talk. In the silence between phrases of small talk I’d remain silent, inexpressive, while concentrating on the words, in order to link the separate thoughts together, to link separate phrases into sentences and sentences into paragraphs, just as my old friend Henri Bergson had described it when defining being and becoming, when the walls of my tenement pad breathed with the in- and exhalation of my breaths and I tried to read while on acid. My senses were still predominant, presaging thoughts or overlapping them, and when an opening in a conversation called upon me to speak, it seemed I didn’t have the time, or space, to gather up the information and craft an answer. And so, when I did speak, it was briefly, in monosyllables.

That no one remarked on my apparent strangeness didn’t mean they hadn’t noticed, only that they were being polite.

But I was not a dolt, despite appearances. I was in rehabilitation, capable of learning. And observing the impression I made, I taught myself to nod when people paused and expected some sort of response; to let them know that I’d heard them and understood. To this, like an animal learning tricks, I added an occasional "Uh-huh." And when a sudden thought occurred to me whole, in association with something that had been said, I hastened to get it out before it slipped away.

Perhaps it's the hour of the morning, but the more I think (oh dear) about personality, the more confused I am by it. Bjza notes that "statistically, {personality classification schemes} don't even correlate with their own results over long intervals" - Anna brings up the point that one can "shift style when it's useful or appropriate." So what we have here is an assertion that there is such a thing as "core personality" (Anna), something "fundamental" (zenomax) that indicates "how one functions" (copyedit52), and yet at the same time behaviors are described as fluid and even unpredictable. Now, I'm only a softminded layman with no knowledge about all this Jungian stuff, but how can we support the idea of a static (fundamental) or primary (core) personality when the behavior is shown to be so erratic? How can we define personality in realistic terms except as exhibited behavior over time? And if said behavior hinges so heavily on circumstance - on the internet, off the internet, Anna's suggestion of "shifting styles" - then how can we pinpoint any sort of consistency at all?

That's not rhetorical - I'm curious if anyone has any answers. Like I said, I don't know much about this thing.

For me, personality types (and again, I don't take the tests, just read the information) always feel like a little like astronomy. Because we all have such multi-faceted personalities, just about any description can be applied usefully to some situation or another.

And >10 copyedit52:, no, I'm not from Manhattan - I just like it. I don't think I could live there, though; for some reason staying for extended periods of time in NYC always makes me aggressive and brusque.

Did you mean "astrology," amaranthic, when you wrote "astronomy"?

And though I don't doubt what bjza states, I don't know what it means that "statistically, they don't even correlate with their own results over long intervals. (Which is unsurprising, given the distribution of their results don't support their theoretical definitions of type.)" Is this a study you're quoting, bjza? Several studies? On Jung's psychological types? Myers Briggs? Both? What's the source? If we're gonna get scientific here, show us the corpse.

To me, Jungian psychology and personality type theory are useful metaphors that help me to evaluate and change the way I interact with my environment. I think these ways of understanding psyche are like myths in that they give a structure that a person can make use of but are not literally descriptive of the way the mind actually works (which is actually more chemical than anything else).

I don't find astrology particularly useful in this regard because it is too vague and seems empty. But of course lots of people would disagree with me.

Lots of practical, hands-on types of people that I have known have not found Jungian archetypes to be useful to them at all. They see it as about as useless as I find astrology. I think some of us enjoy/understand/ relate to metaphorical methods of processing psychology, and others don't.

>20 copyedit52: Yes, I did, sorry. Thanks for catching the typo.

>18 copyedit52: It's interesting that you should bring up the point of drug-influenced behavioral shift in relation to "personality type" (although I'm not sure that that's an accurate representation of introversion), because I was also thinking about the same thing, albeit from a different direction. I would hazard that most people suffering consciously from mental illness have questioned before WHERE the mental illness stops and the person begins. Most of us will agree that the constant hand-washing a la Lady Macbeth is probably the OCD talking, but what about more subtle traits - personality traits, one might suggest - like attention to detail and order, or a fondness for counting things? In the case of mental illness, what is core personality - the illness or the person? And how can we separate one from the other?

I'm really glad that Amaranthic raised those questions, coz I have the same ones.
The assertion that there is a stable core personality I find highly alien to my experience of myself. I am rather envious of those who experience themselves that way: they probably have an easier time in life. My experience of self and personality is a constant shift based on mood, weather, what I'm reading, for Christ's sake (anyone else have that problem?), who I'm with, and what language I am using.

(I am a Theeravada Buddhist, for those who don't know me, and the Buddha talks of personality/self as being an illusion, part of Dukkha. This is much more my experience of the matter.)

I have always, therefore, regarded any kind of personality typology as highly problematic (there are other reasons, which I shall come to in a moment). However, what Zeno said in >14 zenomax: 3rd para is very interesting and illuminating about one's relationship to language and thought. I also appreciate what Anna said in >17 anna_in_pdx: about using her knowledge of types to help in communicating with others whose communication styles are different, so I can see where personality typology might be useful.

My second concern is in the assumptions behind the questions used in the tests.
Let's assume that MAc's questions in 13 are NOT spurious (are they Mac?), they assume that both asker and respondent share the same values: that brands are important, that the experience of going to restaurants is related to food, that I will answer honestly etc. The questions already define the responses, as all questions do. For me, this throws doubt on the validity of the whole scheme.

Mac:
1. I don't like going to restaurants, coz the service here in Taiwan usually leaves me utterly traumatised and in need to a valium dietary supplement.

2. I have no ornaments on my desk. I have a Morrocan tile backed with felt on which to place my coffee mug so as not to leave ring stains on the woodwork. That is functional. Does it count as an ornamental object therefore?

3. I loathe and detest, abhor and revile cars in every possible way. when I win the lottery I will start a terrorist organisation devoted to the elimination of all cars. I drive a scooter: a Yamaha Bianco 250, called Blanche.

4. Emporio Armani.

I hope this helps.

Murr, I think we may actually be the same person. Check your inner left thigh for triangular birthmarks.

OMG!!!!!

Murr faints. And then revives

we must tell Medellia and Lola, who are also me/us. and faints again

LOL you crazy people ! : )

what does spurious mean ? you with all your difficult words !

Clearly Tomcat you are what we call the Innovative type and you fit in the diagram between the more dominant axis which you clearly are ( compared to compliant ) and somewhere more emotional than rational without being outspoken on the emotional level. Probably you were more of the emotional type in younger years but your responsability at your job and your living abroad has moved your score more to the realistic side.

I am in sales, and we yearly organise trainings in detecting typologies. It is very important to construct our argumentation towards the people in front of us. We should be able within seconds by scanning the room, checking the dresscode of our interlocutor and asking the right opening questions to pinpoint the typology.

The typology is a very simple one with two axis dominant - compliant and rational - emotional giving four types - Innovative - Realizing - Structural and Social. There are no bad types, but you have to approach and manage them differently

The funny thing ? It works !

Clearly Tomcat you are what we call the Innovative type and you fit in the diagram between the more dominant axis which you clearly are ( compared to compliant ) and somewhere more emotional than rational without being outspoken on the emotional level. Probably you were more of the emotional type in younger years but your responsability at your job and your living abroad has moved your score more to the realistic side.

Now that is freakishly accurate. How do you do that? Wait, don't tell me you are me as well?!!!!!!

20> I'll elaborate then.

First, in case it isn't well known, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is privately owned and published. Its continued use isn't dependent on independent verification. There's no Federal Department of Psychological Instruments keeping track of its long term results. Quickly trolling Google scholar shows that quality research on the MBTI is rather weak and most of what's out there at all are "low n" studies on its applications.

I don't know much about the other Jung-based type indicators, and was actually surprised to see there are a number of them. Jung himself is not exactly taken seriously by most of psychology.

A general introduction to the history of Jungian types, instruments, and general complaints against either: http://skepdic.com/myersb.html

A fairly easy to read academic paper typical of specific criticism here: http://www.indiana.edu/~jobtalk/HRMWebsite/hrm/articles/develop/mbti.pdf

A slightly more detailed review of the literature:
http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=hs...

More can be found through following citations, the usual sources, or the Wikipedia article on the MBTI (and it's plainly evident history of separating legitimate criticism from the main discussion).

The whole project of personality inventories has faced intense skepticism. Personally, I'd be willing to set aside discussion of Forer effects for the sake of further inquiry if the MBTI repeatedly proved both valid and reliable, but the statistics actually damn it twice. The underlying theory assumes typology (four bimodal distributions), but the instrument's results are barely indistinguishable from noise. So if the theory is correct, the MBTI must be badly designed because it doesn't produce the expected results. Yet if we were to accept the numbers and say "ok, the theory is wrong, distributions are continuous," then the test is still badly designed because it sorts people into 16 distinct types.

29 I am your AVATAR

Mac:

spu⋅ri⋅ous  spyoor-ee-uhs

–adjective
1. not genuine, authentic, or true; not from the claimed, pretended, or proper source; counterfeit.
2. Biology. (of two or more parts, plants, etc.) having a similar appearance but a different structure.
3. of illegitimate birth; bastard.
Origin:
1590–1600;

I am like Winnie the Pooh : Big words bother me !

>30 bjza: Okay, but coming from a lit-crit background (and not wishing to do glib injustice to this venerable and very interesting worth-as-science/worth-in-general debate, in which there are many pertinent things to be said on both sides), just because something is dubious psychology doesn't mean it doesn't have powerful impressionistic explanatory power. These are the stories we tell ourselves about ourselves, just like astrology, or the Greek gods, and I think it's pretty rare that anyone takes them as cognitive science or anything more than a framework and pretext for humanistic self-exploration. Maybe I'm wrong.

I don't care what you are tomcat; I may not be you, but dammit, I'll be damned if I don't luh...luh...like you...a lot.

Imagining you on a scooter in Taipei leaves me quite worried for your physical safety. You do wear a helmet don't you? What do you do when it rains?

Here I am! Out of my way!



but back to topic.....

My god, Freaky is right. What kind of loony drives a scooter in Taipei???? Was trekking Death Valley too tame for you?

For some reason I was under the mistaken impression that Murr was in the south of Taiwan rather than the south of Taipei. Now that I know the truth, I can provide EXCELLENT restaurant recommendations, no valium required... if I ever remember what the darn places are called, anyway. No matter, the street food is divine enough, as Murr surely knows.

Someone else will have to steer us back on topic as I no longer remember what the topic was.

ETA: Sorry Enrique, you are Freaky to me forevermore, or at least until I forget about this endearing epithet.

Topick, Schmopick.

The problem of Taipei (in 2001, but I assume it has only grown worse) is that there are *countless* loonies on scooters, probably because the traffic jams make it much harder for cars to make substantial progress. In Holland and China the bicycle more or less plays the role of traffic jam escape mechanism. But navigating with 100 cyclists through a narrow street is still much more fun than doing that with 100 scooters, esp. the variety that emits billows of dark smoke.

Yes, same problem last time I was there as well (summer 2009) - driving a scooter in Taipei definitely wouldn't be nearly as dangerous if there weren't your fellow motorcyclists to contend with. At times the traffic in Taipei has reminded me strongly of Tetris.

I was waiting at a honkin' busy intersection in my small/shitty East Coast city the other day, and this Asian dude cycled right out into the fray diagonally and made it to the other side without slowing down or missing a step. I tend to be pretty reckless in crossing the road by US standards, but I was really impressed with this guy! I like to think that he was from another country; my experience with China and Taiwan, at least, is that the streets are never sane and the people compensate with extra traffic-braving chutzpah (American usage).

I've been driving a scooter here for ten years.... (with no licence, oooops!). It's fun. The other scooter drivers can be easily dealt with with a nifty well-placed kick, it's the taxis and bus drivers stoned out of their minds on betel nut that you have to watch out for.

But Guys Guys Guys, back on topic!!!

* Murr thumps his herring on the table*

What we need is discipline around here!!

(do we need an extra thread for Murr's adventures on Formosa? Or will that only confuse Copyedit52 even more?)

I tend to agree with Martin in >34 MeditationesMartini: about the validity of Jung's archetypes from a humanistic self-exploration angle (well put, btw), but I have the same concerns about MBIT that bjza expressed in 30. However, I have to say that most of psychology for me is highly dubious, so using that as a benchmark for assessing whether something has validity is not going to cut the mustard with me.

I'd like to know what those who found MB useful have to say about bjza's points in 30.

I agree with all bjza's points. As a natural born sceptic, I went to the skepdic.com myself when I first came across MB. Also I would fell uncomfortable proposing any unverifiable 'truth' as I know how annoyed I feel when a christian or marxist (as examples) try to show me the way to light and peace.

Having said that, I just find the schema used in these Jungian personality theories to be helpful as ways of seeing personality. I can also pick out (as Mac does) people in my circle as being within a general (or sometimes specific) area of personality type. Lastly, it helps me deal with people when I know what type of response will spark their interest or hit their wavelength.

The best I can say is that it is nowhere near a scientific, verified truth, but it helps provide me with insights which I would not otherwise have. I find it useful. I also find it intriguing.

People have studied the Talmud, for instance, for hundreds of years, with all its mischa goss, and in fact the specifics don't matter, since the interpretations and constant reinterpretions present a changing Rorschach of meaning that reflect changing times. Like the intense interest in the messiah (about a thousand years ago), and (to me) the fascinating conversations and assertions of the flawed messiah in the Kabbalah, one of many lines of commentary on the Talmud, distinct form the Christian model of perfection that is Jesus.

Jungian interpretation, tarot card readings, enneagrams, etc.: you needn't have judgments on these things. In fact, it's better not to. So long as you find personal meaning in what of course is subjective (what is real, anyway?) they can be helpful. Buddhism too. Nothing is sacred, after all.

The Myers Briggs thing is intended (as I have to assume, because I don't know it and I'm not into it) for a more specific purpose--like an IQ test--and thus seems to me something else entirely.

34> I'd be happy if "humanistic self-exploration" was all they were used for. The prevalence of Jungian type instruments, specifically the MBTI, in career advising and project administration has stirred up something of a small moral outrage. We shouldn't discourage people from entering careers because of Jung's, Myers', or Briggs' preconceptions. (Granted, there are bigger world issues to worry about and far more dangerous pseudosciences lining the "supplement" shelves at pharmacies.)

I'm not sure I understand the statement "just because something is dubious psychology doesn't mean it doesn't have powerful impressionistic explanatory power." Or at least I'm not sure I understand the qualifier "impressionistic." If something is dubious science, it's explanatory power is what's being called into question. If "impressionistic" means we're just talking about individuals finding personal significance in it, then ok, sure, that's trivially true (as it is even for deliberately false things).

41> Murr wrote: "I have to say that most of psychology for me is highly dubious, so using that as a benchmark for assessing whether something has validity is not going to cut the mustard with me."

This is why I picked criticism that focused on the math and not whether the MBTI lines up with some more fashionable theory. Like I pointed out, even if we assume the underlying theory behind the MBTI is absolutely true, it's still a bad instrument.

On Jung's work, my impression is that it's fallen out of favor for the same reason Freud's has: it's able to describe every possible outcome but predict none of them. As such, it's not even capable of being science without some twiddling. It might be great as a lens through which to see literature, but if we want to apply it to actual human cognition and behavior, then we have to accept that it should change or be discarded if it doesn't hold up.

34> I'd be happy if "humanistic self-exploration" was all they were used for. The prevalence of Jungian type instruments, specifically the MBTI, in career advising and project administration has stirred up something of a small moral outrage. We shouldn't discourage people from entering careers because of Jung's, Myers', or Briggs' preconceptions. (Granted, there are bigger world issues to worry about and far more dangerous pseudosciences lining the "supplement" shelves at pharmacies.)

I am very surprised by this! I guess the idea of institutions finding empirically valid truths in personality tests isn't as mid-20th century as I'd thought.

I'm not sure I understand the statement "just because something is dubious psychology doesn't mean it doesn't have powerful impressionistic explanatory power." Or at least I'm not sure I understand the qualifier "impressionistic." If something is dubious science, it's explanatory power is what's being called into question. If "impressionistic" means we're just talking about individuals finding personal significance in it, then ok, sure, that's trivially true (as it is even for deliberately false things).

It was meant to mean just that, but obviously knowing what I do now (per the first part of your comment cited) puts a slightly different spin on that.