Omg I better turn on the notifications for your channel, completely missed this one. As of the topic: hahaha, rule #1 of (my) religion is that I don’t talk about my religion. Some things don‘t need proof, like poetry, or language, or philosophy, or art, or even psychoanalysis, not just religion. They exist beyond evidence-based reasoning and it doesn’t make them any less or more relevant than anything scientific. imo. Love the essays in the comment section here
I broadly agree with you and think that typology and religion can be compared on some level, but I think where they can differ is in their execution. Just to give a common example, you can't say "I don't believe in Jesus as my lord and savior ( therefore exempting me from heaven) but I still follow Christianity" because it's contradictory by the standards of Christianity, you would simply be following for no reason with the same presumed outcome as a non-believer ( i.e. "hell"). With typology you can say "I don't believe in typology as a matter of total fact, but I still study and talk about it" because there's not those same systemic limitations, you can self-admit your belief is contradictory or illogical and it doesn't invalidate you as an individual for studying or keeping up with the system in question. The line of logic I'm mentioning here isn't flawless and also doesn't track 100%, because in typology outcomes are studied (by observing people's behavior) and not presumed (like the afterlife), but just because something is (or was) studied doesn't mean it is logical (like phrenology, bloodletting, etc.). So while I thought it was worth mentioning, the outcome you've come to on the topic intersects with my own because the objective logic really is not there in either case. Where they really differ is in presentation and the nature of their presumed outcomes, because whether you are creating a religious or typological system it's right to say there's no objectivity to it in a 'Te' sense. No clue if this comment is worthwhile or just missing the point, but I am going off-the-cuff xD
TLDR: Yes, in that it's subject to group thinking, and its specifics are not well defined. No, it's not a religion because the objective is still observable. That said, it could easily be a incorporated into a religion. Typology needs more strict definitions and more success mapping cognitive relationships between functions. You're correct in a broad sense that typology has qualities of a religion. Perhaps it's the result of the difficulty in parsing complexity of the subject, but the system has enough discrete utility, or the promise of utility, that makes it easy for people to adhere to.... However, even though we shift through the sewer of regurgitated stereotypes, confirmation biases, speculations, and self-affirmations, the end goal is still well known and in the physical world. The goal of typology is to marry observable behavior to a predictive knowledge system. Far off from most religions and seeming achievable. Typology, defined as the study and defining of behavioral patterns, is a useful endeavor in a more practical and less metaphysical way than religion. ...The difference in practicality may be a function of the relative specificity of tyoplogy's area of focus, but i digress. You could say typology and religion both attempt to describe or make sense of metaphysical domains of human experience that we encounter whether we want to or not. That said, calling all typology a religion is painting too broad of a stroke. However, I would agree that most typology content and discussions mirror religion in that they evangalize oftentimes poorly understood or defined ideas with a promise of a positive outcome. However, one difference is that humans can more easily ignore some existential issues that religions address than the intra/interpersonal dynamics that complicate everyday life. At the very least, and perhaps at its best, typology defines objects of behavior and dynamics of behavioral patterns. These definitions of relative cognitive preference and functional relationships offer utility that far outreach that of mbti types, descriptions, and the assigning of labels for others. There is serious potential for some of these newer ideas from the typology space to be used to reliably innovate upon cognition and behavior of yourself and others. The problem is that these ideas are often obscured by the massive amount of regurgitation of unparsed stereotypes and vague definitions. It would be beneficial for the more impressive theories and models to use a different lexicon than traditional typologies. Not just to separate from the pack, but also to free themselves of the cognitive baggage and rampant misuse and abiguity of terms. Noam Chomsky somewhat recently said in an interview that he didn't believe Jung's arcetypes were intended to be used for introspection. I think that's true, but if defined correctly, I think there is a real chance to maximize the fittedness of the knowledge system to the point it could be considered truth.
How do you know socionics isnt used by elites, because they would advertise this? All kinds of stuff covered by ip. You should read the critique of pure reason, it seems the archetypes are a priori analytic, hence why you see it as religious
Se and Ti are always utilitarian as in doing it "my way". Te does not care about being ingenious. Te with Si is very standard operating procedure. Te with Ni is utilitarian following the No "vision". In short, SP and NT is utilitarian at the whole type level. SJ is cooperative and NFs tend to be contradictory collectivist individualists.
Omg I better turn on the notifications for your channel, completely missed this one.
As of the topic: hahaha, rule #1 of (my) religion is that I don’t talk about my religion.
Some things don‘t need proof, like poetry, or language, or philosophy, or art, or even psychoanalysis, not just religion. They exist beyond evidence-based reasoning and it doesn’t make them any less or more relevant than anything scientific. imo. Love the essays in the comment section here
I broadly agree with you and think that typology and religion can be compared on some level, but I think where they can differ is in their execution. Just to give a common example, you can't say "I don't believe in Jesus as my lord and savior ( therefore exempting me from heaven) but I still follow Christianity" because it's contradictory by the standards of Christianity, you would simply be following for no reason with the same presumed outcome as a non-believer ( i.e. "hell"). With typology you can say "I don't believe in typology as a matter of total fact, but I still study and talk about it" because there's not those same systemic limitations, you can self-admit your belief is contradictory or illogical and it doesn't invalidate you as an individual for studying or keeping up with the system in question.
The line of logic I'm mentioning here isn't flawless and also doesn't track 100%, because in typology outcomes are studied (by observing people's behavior) and not presumed (like the afterlife), but just because something is (or was) studied doesn't mean it is logical (like phrenology, bloodletting, etc.). So while I thought it was worth mentioning, the outcome you've come to on the topic intersects with my own because the objective logic really is not there in either case. Where they really differ is in presentation and the nature of their presumed outcomes, because whether you are creating a religious or typological system it's right to say there's no objectivity to it in a 'Te' sense.
No clue if this comment is worthwhile or just missing the point, but I am going off-the-cuff xD
TLDR: Yes, in that it's subject to group thinking, and its specifics are not well defined. No, it's not a religion because the objective is still observable. That said, it could easily be a incorporated into a religion. Typology needs more strict definitions and more success mapping cognitive relationships between functions.
You're correct in a broad sense that typology has qualities of a religion. Perhaps it's the result of the difficulty in parsing complexity of the subject, but the system has enough discrete utility, or the promise of utility, that makes it easy for people to adhere to.... However, even though we shift through the sewer of regurgitated stereotypes, confirmation biases, speculations, and self-affirmations, the end goal is still well known and in the physical world. The goal of typology is to marry observable behavior to a predictive knowledge system. Far off from most religions and seeming achievable.
Typology, defined as the study and defining of behavioral patterns, is a useful endeavor in a more practical and less metaphysical way than religion. ...The difference in practicality may be a function of the relative specificity of tyoplogy's area of focus, but i digress.
You could say typology and religion both attempt to describe or make sense of metaphysical domains of human experience that we encounter whether we want to or not. That said, calling all typology a religion is painting too broad of a stroke. However, I would agree that most typology content and discussions mirror religion in that they evangalize oftentimes poorly understood or defined ideas with a promise of a positive outcome.
However, one difference is that humans can more easily ignore some existential issues that religions address than the intra/interpersonal dynamics that complicate everyday life.
At the very least, and perhaps at its best, typology defines objects of behavior and dynamics of behavioral patterns. These definitions of relative cognitive preference and functional relationships offer utility that far outreach that of mbti types, descriptions, and the assigning of labels for others.
There is serious potential for some of these newer ideas from the typology space to be used to reliably innovate upon cognition and behavior of yourself and others. The problem is that these ideas are often obscured by the massive amount of regurgitation of unparsed stereotypes and vague definitions.
It would be beneficial for the more impressive theories and models to use a different lexicon than traditional typologies. Not just to separate from the pack, but also to free themselves of the cognitive baggage and rampant misuse and abiguity of terms.
Noam Chomsky somewhat recently said in an interview that he didn't believe Jung's arcetypes were intended to be used for introspection. I think that's true, but if defined correctly, I think there is a real chance to maximize the fittedness of the knowledge system to the point it could be considered truth.
How do you know socionics isnt used by elites, because they would advertise this? All kinds of stuff covered by ip. You should read the critique of pure reason, it seems the archetypes are a priori analytic, hence why you see it as religious
Se and Ti are always utilitarian as in doing it "my way". Te does not care about being ingenious. Te with Si is very standard operating procedure. Te with Ni is utilitarian following the No "vision". In short, SP and NT is utilitarian at the whole type level. SJ is cooperative and NFs tend to be contradictory collectivist individualists.