Posted by Dry and Uninspired  2/17/2018 1:55 pm | #1 |
MBTI, Socionics, Big 5...Do you have any views on this?
Didn’t know where this would fit. I suppose it’s philosophic psychology, so I’ll post it here.
|
Posted by Brian 2/20/2018 5:24 pm | #2 |
What do you mean by valid? Most personality quizzes latch onto real properties, but I think the question has more to do with how we delineate among "natural kinds" of personality if there are such things. I am/used to be very interested in Jung, and so have a peripheral interest in typology, if you'd care to discuss the topic further.
|
Posted by Dry and Uninspired 2/20/2018 9:09 pm | #3 |
Brian wrote:
What do you mean by valid? Most personality quizzes latch onto real properties, but I think the question has more to do with how we delineate among "natural kinds" of personality if there are such things. I am/used to be very interested in Jung, and so have a peripheral interest in typology, if you'd care to discuss the topic further.
Well, for example, do you think there is any merit to the notion of functions?
Supposedly I’m an INFP, meaning my dominant function is introverted feeling, followed by extroverted intuituion, and so on. Are these functions in any way real and meaningful?
|
Posted by seigneur 2/25/2018 7:38 am | #4 |
Valid in what sense? MBTI has proven to have the most practical value in describing and determining personality types, if that matters. And I would favor it even simply for the fact that it derives from Jung. I very much believe Jung got it right without any oversimplification. Jung's Psychological Types is recommended reading - in entirety.
Jung is recommendable because he himself drew much from his studies of the mystics. Mystics are those who introspect (mysticism must not be confused with mysteries; when you know how to introspect, there is nothing mysterious about it), so they directly see and can authentically describe psychological phenomena, functions, processes and structures. Given his studies of the mystics, Jung's system of psychology is in alignment with the mystics.
For example, Jung distinguishes four psychological functions, in hierarchical order: sensation, feeling (emotion), thinking (intellect), and intuition. Compare this to Al-Ghazali, in Alchemy of Happiness, Chapter 1, "On knowledge of the soul..."
...your internal qualities are distributed into animal, ferocious, demoniacal and angelic qualities. You need to know, therefore, what qualities predominate in your character...
Not exactly the same functions, but the same number and the same dynamic. Good psychologically informative Christian mystics I can recommend include John Ruysbroeck and Walter Hilton.
|
Posted by Brian 2/26/2018 6:47 pm | #5 |
Well, for example, do you think there is any merit to the notion of functions?
Supposedly I’m an INFP, meaning my dominant function is introverted feeling, followed by extroverted intuituion, and so on. Are these functions in any way real and meaningful?
Functions are definitely meritorious as ideas. It seems obvious to me that some people approach the world fundamentally through reason while others approach it through emotion. When I consistently get labeled an "intellectual" or "reason" type, it accounts for why I like philosophy, and chess, and many of the other things I enjoy, and why I don't "get" certain things, like the novel Wuthering Heights, to use an example that just came to mind.
A good question that I think is not at all settled is what causes one function to dominate the others in a particular individual. Some people think it is a defense mechanism (perhaps I am reasonable but emotionally cold because it protects my emotional health). Others think it is innate character (the traditional Indian Castes were originally designed to accommodate different temperaments of people in a way similar to this.)
As a mere description, I think these types makes sense and have empirical support. Jung, however, was interested in what he called Individuation, which is like his version of spiritual realization. To achieve individuation, one must recognize one's own lopsided functions, and find ways to let the neglected functions have their proper role in your life. Contrary to what Seigneur says, I have never seen Jung claim that these different functions are hierarchical (but Jung does sometimes flat out contradict himself, so maybe we are both correct). Rather, we all have a dominating function, and to truly become a unique individual, we can't be molded into a type, but must use all our capacities. If it is possible to become fully Individuated, I think that person's MB test would come back totally neutral, because none of their functions would dominate the others.
I have some reservations about Jung's reading of the world's religions/mystics and individuation as life's goal, but that is a separate issue from this one.
Last edited by Brian (2/26/2018 6:51 pm)
