”Fails to take into account the holistic being of a person” Beautifully put! A Fi-Ni perspective probably. An INFP’s two strongest dimensions (according to socionics) in wonderful sync. 😊
I always say too much, but I think you've found what is important about this and stated it very well. A big thing I see in typology is that each system values different things, and different types of people also value these different things, so people gravitate towards the theory they want, or else they secretly go about inserting their values and desires into the system they are studying as they interpret it. A lot of typology is arguing these values and feelings as if they were science.
Thank you for this rundown, you really hit the nail on the head I think. I mean, there's such an appeal in using a type grid to easily type someone, and sometimes it seems to work (nearly by accident) but there's so much mistyping that happens as a result of it. I'm remembering an old episode of CS Typing Johnny Depp. Depp was being interviewed and was asked a question, to which Depp answered simply 'no'. CS immediately goes 'that's a Ti statement' and obviously everything after that led to Depp being an ENTP. Which is funny. But it's frustrating too. And yes, there are plenty of INFPs who would be far more 'concrete' than 'abstract' out there, I've certainly met those. And it shouldn't make them any less INFP.
Just wanted to say hi. 🙏 Loved the presentation even if my brain couldn't digest it except for the conclusion, and the professionalism of it all on screen. You so remind me more and more of my INTP dad and grandson.
Thanks Dee! That was the work Dulles speaking. You know when you have a thought and can't let it go until it's been played out. This topic has been bugging me for months. The topic wouldn't let me go until I'd said something. Now I hope I can just talk about regular stuff again! 😌 And I have fingers tightly crossed for your upcoming chat by successful female INFPs. I'd really love to see that happen!
I had to pause the video to stare at those Arsenals and Affinities. Unbelievable. Tortured metaphors that will obscure rather than clarify fairly simple concepts.
Back in the day, I worked with a firm whose rival came up with something like a 7-pointed star of innovation model for clients. It made everything they did more confusing and complicated. As for choosing armaments ... ok to select flail? I mostly tend to flail about helplessly, so it's a more suitable idiom.
csj system has 4 sides (ego, subconscious, unconscious, superego) with each side having their own interaction styles. One side of the mind can influence the ego side of the mind. So, for example an ISTJ ego (concrete by default) can be abstract if their ENFP subconscious has a lot of influence on their ego. I don't think you really understand his system but good effort though.
Thanks for this! You're right, I stay away from polyphonic personality theory like John Beebe's Four Sides of the Mind. Your observation (that each side has its own interaction style) seems at odds with Type Grid's success in delivering consistent results. Maybe people permanently get stuck on a side, or they fall into the same pattern whenever they use the tool? I do consistently self-assess as an ISFJ with Type Grid, so that's good...
Hi, i can't say i understand type grid but like you said it is a totally different model that uses other variables amd measure different things than mbti. I remember reading about Berens and her "behind the scenes" style is definitely me, but that might be different for more assertive infps.
Yeah, I think Dr. Berens' stuff is really interesting, too. Her work was mis-used when it was made into the foundation of a MBTI typing tool. But there it is -- and here we are.
I think one could argue that the cognitive functions are not a "dichotomy" either. Like, how came those graphs you have to be? Someone measured (asked?) if someone is more pragmatic or affiliative and compared it to their MBTI type!? But I think that you would get the same result with functions. If you would ask someone if he is more F or T, I think that you would have some MBTI feelers identifying with T and vice versa. It's one of the reasons mistypes exist. So the functions are also "indirect correlates" to something internal - the "real Function" vs the "described/defined Function". Let's take gender for comparison, since it's better defined. We can scientifically know someone's gender by measuring what kind of chromosomes one has. We could also look at genitalia. But neither of those things are readily accessible. 🙂So we use indirect markers to find out the gender. We might use the length of hair. Or the way someone walks. Or depth of voice. Some are better, some are worse... Note that: 1) People don't go around saying: "This person is a man in this system that observes how deep the voice is, but a woman in the system that observes how someone walks." 2) People understand that some or all indirect markers can be off and that doesn't change the perception of the gender. The markers just don't fit - it happens. 3) There is this mystical indescribable understanding that all different views look at the same person with one "true GENDER". Sure, you can take those markers and be strict with them "(In my system) If someone has short hair, it cannot be a woman!". But that doesn't mean that other people shouldn't mix and match those markers or systems, whatever we call them. They just use them differently. They see only 16 different types and map those imperfect markers onto them (sometimes more, sometimes less successfully), like they do with gender. Sometimes there is this problem that someone does both - "uses definitions strictly (doesn't realize that they are just tendencies / imperfect descriptions)" and "pushes this TYPE into another system". Which is just propagating mistypes. But sometimes there is someone who understands this data in the same way we (or most people) understand gender and tries to communicate the "real TYPE" (doesn't mean that he can't be wrong in his/her typing) into another system - tries to show them the imperfections of their system: "I know that men have usually short hair, but this long-haired person is a man!". ... And sure, if someone doesn't acknowledge/like/use this "only 16 types of people described imperfectly by different observants", then such a person propagating "true TYPE" or "true GENDER" will look silly and confused to him/her. 🙃 The risk comes with the (typology) trade. 😋
I'm not sure if I'm at all in opposition to the statements in the video. There are more ways to look at things and I just wanted to share the way I prefer to do it.
@@fadingintent For or against, it's all fine. The critique is interesting. 🙃 And IMO you are being very fair. I fear more the people who use Type Grid as I've just called their baby ugly in a way, and that's a lousy thing to do.
I wish I could hand out awards for carefully considered thinking - you deserve one for this! Couple things because they’re interesting: - Off the cuff, but Linda Berens noted with interaction styles that some correlation to MBTI was based on her observations. For one of her books, she got four people of each type to describe their experiences in their own ‘voice’, which she used as a basis to flavor her research with qualitative commentary. I might’ve gotten some of those details wrong. The point is, she was transparent about at least some bits of her research, and that was nifty. I think that's right, Jung’s Psychological Types cognitive functions are not dichotomies, My point on MBTI dichotomies is self-assessments ask questions trying to get at the splits directly… “E” or “I”, “S” or “N”, “T” or “F”. MBTI self-assessments generally don’t do it well, but they are at least trying to match the typing tool to the dichotomies it’s supposed to measure. (To undercut my own position - cognitive functions seem to manifest differently depending on position & stack… sigh. Typing is hard…!) Your gender analogy is good, and with apologies, I will extend and strain it. I’d suggest not all systems intend to measure gender... maybe one system is about gender and uses features like hair length and voice. Another system cares about body shape - ectomorph, endomorph, mezomorph - and there’s some correlation between body proportions and gender, but the intent is shape. Another system maybe focuses on athletic ability, and again there’s some correlation between athletics and gender, but the intent is to measure fitness. This is what I’d argue is closer to the situation with Interaction Styles vs. Temperaments vs. Socionics and MBTI. These different but correlated measures are all individually valuable! As long as it’s clear who’s doing what - then we can assess hair/face/voice, body type, muscle tone, and figure out how to assemble it all to take a guess at gender. Therefore my frustration. If only Type Grid showed off what came from where, maybe people might investigate more. Instead it slaps MBTI labels on top of a collection of systems in a way that doesn’t fit. Again, thank you for your thoughts. My reply was oiginally much longer - a way to say how much you got me thinking (for which I’m very grateful). You gave me a lot of food for thought and I appreciate the nourishment. 🙏
”Fails to take into account the holistic being of a person” Beautifully put!
A Fi-Ni perspective probably. An INFP’s two strongest dimensions (according to socionics) in wonderful sync. 😊
I always say too much, but I think you've found what is important about this and stated it very well.
A big thing I see in typology is that each system values different things, and different types of people also value these different things, so people gravitate towards the theory they want, or else they secretly go about inserting their values and desires into the system they are studying as they interpret it. A lot of typology is arguing these values and feelings as if they were science.
Thank you! 🙏
Thank you for this rundown, you really hit the nail on the head I think. I mean, there's such an appeal in using a type grid to easily type someone, and sometimes it seems to work (nearly by accident) but there's so much mistyping that happens as a result of it. I'm remembering an old episode of CS Typing Johnny Depp. Depp was being interviewed and was asked a question, to which Depp answered simply 'no'. CS immediately goes 'that's a Ti statement' and obviously everything after that led to Depp being an ENTP. Which is funny. But it's frustrating too. And yes, there are plenty of INFPs who would be far more 'concrete' than 'abstract' out there, I've certainly met those. And it shouldn't make them any less INFP.
Proud to be a Type Grid ISFJ 💙
Just wanted to say hi. 🙏 Loved the presentation even if my brain couldn't digest it except for the conclusion, and the professionalism of it all on screen. You so remind me more and more of my INTP dad and grandson.
Thanks Dee! That was the work Dulles speaking. You know when you have a thought and can't let it go until it's been played out. This topic has been bugging me for months. The topic wouldn't let me go until I'd said something. Now I hope I can just talk about regular stuff again! 😌
And I have fingers tightly crossed for your upcoming chat by successful female INFPs. I'd really love to see that happen!
I had to pause the video to stare at those Arsenals and Affinities. Unbelievable. Tortured metaphors that will obscure rather than clarify fairly simple concepts.
Back in the day, I worked with a firm whose rival came up with something like a 7-pointed star of innovation model for clients. It made everything they did more confusing and complicated.
As for choosing armaments ... ok to select flail? I mostly tend to flail about helplessly, so it's a more suitable idiom.
csj system has 4 sides (ego, subconscious, unconscious, superego) with each side having their own interaction styles. One side of the mind can influence the ego side of the mind. So, for example an ISTJ ego (concrete by default) can be abstract if their ENFP subconscious has a lot of influence on their ego. I don't think you really understand his system but good effort though.
Thanks for this! You're right, I stay away from polyphonic personality theory like John Beebe's Four Sides of the Mind.
Your observation (that each side has its own interaction style) seems at odds with Type Grid's success in delivering consistent results. Maybe people permanently get stuck on a side, or they fall into the same pattern whenever they use the tool?
I do consistently self-assess as an ISFJ with Type Grid, so that's good...
Hi, i can't say i understand type grid but like you said it is a totally different model that uses other variables amd measure different things than mbti.
I remember reading about Berens and her "behind the scenes" style is definitely me, but that might be different for more assertive infps.
Yeah, I think Dr. Berens' stuff is really interesting, too. Her work was mis-used when it was made into the foundation of a MBTI typing tool. But there it is -- and here we are.
I think one could argue that the cognitive functions are not a "dichotomy" either. Like, how came those graphs you have to be? Someone measured (asked?) if someone is more pragmatic or affiliative and compared it to their MBTI type!? But I think that you would get the same result with functions. If you would ask someone if he is more F or T, I think that you would have some MBTI feelers identifying with T and vice versa. It's one of the reasons mistypes exist. So the functions are also "indirect correlates" to something internal - the "real Function" vs the "described/defined Function".
Let's take gender for comparison, since it's better defined. We can scientifically know someone's gender by measuring what kind of chromosomes one has. We could also look at genitalia. But neither of those things are readily accessible. 🙂So we use indirect markers to find out the gender. We might use the length of hair. Or the way someone walks. Or depth of voice. Some are better, some are worse...
Note that:
1) People don't go around saying: "This person is a man in this system that observes how deep the voice is, but a woman in the system that observes how someone walks."
2) People understand that some or all indirect markers can be off and that doesn't change the perception of the gender. The markers just don't fit - it happens.
3) There is this mystical indescribable understanding that all different views look at the same person with one "true GENDER".
Sure, you can take those markers and be strict with them "(In my system) If someone has short hair, it cannot be a woman!". But that doesn't mean that other people shouldn't mix and match those markers or systems, whatever we call them. They just use them differently. They see only 16 different types and map those imperfect markers onto them (sometimes more, sometimes less successfully), like they do with gender.
Sometimes there is this problem that someone does both - "uses definitions strictly (doesn't realize that they are just tendencies / imperfect descriptions)" and "pushes this TYPE into another system". Which is just propagating mistypes. But sometimes there is someone who understands this data in the same way we (or most people) understand gender and tries to communicate the "real TYPE" (doesn't mean that he can't be wrong in his/her typing) into another system - tries to show them the imperfections of their system: "I know that men have usually short hair, but this long-haired person is a man!". ... And sure, if someone doesn't acknowledge/like/use this "only 16 types of people described imperfectly by different observants", then such a person propagating "true TYPE" or "true GENDER" will look silly and confused to him/her. 🙃 The risk comes with the (typology) trade. 😋
I'm not sure if I'm at all in opposition to the statements in the video. There are more ways to look at things and I just wanted to share the way I prefer to do it.
@@fadingintent For or against, it's all fine. The critique is interesting. 🙃 And IMO you are being very fair. I fear more the people who use Type Grid as I've just called their baby ugly in a way, and that's a lousy thing to do.
I wish I could hand out awards for carefully considered thinking - you deserve one for this!
Couple things because they’re interesting:
- Off the cuff, but Linda Berens noted with interaction styles that some correlation to MBTI was based on her observations. For one of her books, she got four people of each type to describe their experiences in their own ‘voice’, which she used as a basis to flavor her research with qualitative commentary. I might’ve gotten some of those details wrong. The point is, she was transparent about at least some bits of her research, and that was nifty.
I think that's right, Jung’s Psychological Types cognitive functions are not dichotomies, My point on MBTI dichotomies is self-assessments ask questions trying to get at the splits directly… “E” or “I”, “S” or “N”, “T” or “F”. MBTI self-assessments generally don’t do it well, but they are at least trying to match the typing tool to the dichotomies it’s supposed to measure. (To undercut my own position - cognitive functions seem to manifest differently depending on position & stack… sigh. Typing is hard…!)
Your gender analogy is good, and with apologies, I will extend and strain it.
I’d suggest not all systems intend to measure gender... maybe one system is about gender and uses features like hair length and voice. Another system cares about body shape - ectomorph, endomorph, mezomorph - and there’s some correlation between body proportions and gender, but the intent is shape. Another system maybe focuses on athletic ability, and again there’s some correlation between athletics and gender, but the intent is to measure fitness. This is what I’d argue is closer to the situation with Interaction Styles vs. Temperaments vs. Socionics and MBTI. These different but correlated measures are all individually valuable! As long as it’s clear who’s doing what - then we can assess hair/face/voice, body type, muscle tone, and figure out how to assemble it all to take a guess at gender.
Therefore my frustration. If only Type Grid showed off what came from where, maybe people might investigate more. Instead it slaps MBTI labels on top of a collection of systems in a way that doesn’t fit.
Again, thank you for your thoughts. My reply was oiginally much longer - a way to say how much you got me thinking (for which I’m very grateful). You gave me a lot of food for thought and I appreciate the nourishment. 🙏
@@dulles1969 I like your explanation. Those are good points.