Personality Types

[paladinoflunaria]

This may do better in Flamethrower.

Please explain your reply to the poll.

Essentially what I'm asking is whether personality types are objective or subjective.

I'd say they're objective. I'm an INTP because I have dominant Ti, etc.

[Odyssey]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding "people", but correct me if I'm on a different plane of thought.

I think people mostly define personality types. People ultimately decide how they are going to divide others into certain groups by personality. It is a subjective decision by individuals or groups about which 'parts' of personalities can be categorized in a particular meaningful way.

Alternatively, personality can define a person when personality types are based on relatively distinct cognitive or emotional processes that a person most utilizes. The latter might include abilities like analysis, synthesis, and sequencing and/or empathy, submissiveness, and expressiveness. For instance, "Person Y is sooo analytical, OMG." However, what defines a personality type?

Yes, there are relatively objectives measures of personality, but it is a largely subjective decision made by people as to what parts of personalities become certain personality types, and by whatever process of categorization.

~Odyssey

[spaced]

Yes, there are relatively objectives measures of personality, but it is a largely subjective decision made by people as to what parts of personalities become certain personality types, and by whatever process of categorization.

Exactly. It's like asking whether our biological classification systems (species, genus, etc.) are objective or subjective. They're simply a commonly accepted means of categorizing things.

[Vagabond]

The raw material is people. You form personality types' theory by observing and analysing people's behaviour; personality types is not something pre-existent, or something obvious from birth (like eye colour or anything). People define them, according to their observations on other people.

[Johnny]

I think our exploration and study of genetics will reveal a lot more about us, but regardless I think we continue to define personality types.

For example: INTP is not who I am, it's simply my personality preference among a selection of personality types.

Plus, the goal in the Myers-Briggs system is to understand your preference so that you can work on the other personality preference elements listed that you consider weak while you leverage what you consider your strengths...you work to become someone who is strong in all the elements. Why then, restrict yourself when you can strive to have it all?

[Jkrs]

In simplest form, there wouldn't be personality types without someone there to think about them. :D

[Birnam]

You forgot 'it depends' .. ;)

In one case personality types define people by giving a natural physic phenomenon a label, then again personality types are defined by reality (in theory anyway), so that people are the deciding factor in any personality type label system. You could just as well ask, 'does a dictionary define words or do words define a dictionary?'. People have personality types whether or not we choose to recognize them. Personality types and people are both dependent on the other. Which brings us back to the whole chicken/egg question...

My first fleeting impression was that 'people define personality types'.

[Miss Padfoot]

I think spaced put it best. I like the comparison between personality types and biological classification (genus, species, etc.) I think that abstract designations (like INTP) are imperfect models for describing people, not the other way around. And I can't put my thoughts into words tonight, so I'm sorry about that and you're just stuck with my unsupported opinion for now.

[CosmicDust]

People decide where to draw the lines on type. People have a natural inclination to pick up on patterns in things, and then to organize these patterns - a lot of this is done by intuition shared among many, so it's not necessarily arbitrary. However, types are very loose groupings, and so most people are probably not going to be entirely predictable according to what's written or otherwise known about a personality type. There can be a buttload of variation within a given type - especially something like "Enneagram type 6."

[paladinoflunaria]

...personality types are defined by reality (in theory anyway).

I think personality isn't defined by reality, but it is part of reality. There is a misunderstanding, I think. Of course people technically define personality types because they use the system to categorize, but that's not what this is about.

The question is: were personality types invented by people, or were they discovered by people?

I would say that they are a discovery. It all comes down to whether you are a Sophist or not. I am not a Sophist - I am an absolutist. My reasons for being so can be summarized by Aristotle's Law of Identity, A=A.
"What is is, regardless of whether an agent perceives it for its true nature. " - Terry Goodkind

"I think therefore I am." - Rene Descartes (an INTP I might add)

Whether or not there exist people who exhibit tendencies, the idea of those tendencies still exists. The definition exists, but not necessarily does it define anything.

I'm surprised that kind of thinking is the minority here. This appeals to Ti and Ne, whereas this shying away from absolute truth by some of you is more like Se.


I think that abstract designations (like INTP) are imperfect models for describing people, not the other way around.

This sounds like S and not N. Perhaps you just aren't completely defined by the INTP definition. Just because you aren't doesn't mean that no one is.

There exists misconstruence; subjectivity. There exists truth beyond that, too.

[Johnny]

Paladinoflunaria: "I think therefore I am." - Rene Descartes (an INTP I might add)

Please know that my intention isn't to "pick on you". I just wanted to share that this isn't an identity statement (you call it A=A). This is supposed to be a deduction, I think.

[Miss Padfoot]

I think that abstract designations (like INTP) are imperfect models for describing people, not the other way around.

This sounds like S and not N. Perhaps you just aren't completely defined by the INTP definition. Just because you aren't doesn't mean that no one is.Actually, it's got nothing to do with S. It's a difference between Ni and Ne. (The following quotes are from the Lenore Thompson Exegesis wiki (http://greenlightwiki.com/lenore-exegesis/).) Ni tells us that
patterns aren't 'out there' in the world, waiting to be discovered. They're part of us--the way we make sense of the riot of energy and information impinging on our systems. A disease syndrome [read: personality theory] is a useful construct, but that's all it is--an aggregate of observations attached to a label, telling us what to see and how to deal with it.... Introverted Intuition (Ni) is the attitude that whatever is manifest (apparent, observable, described) is only the tiniest fraction of the total reality and all of its potential, and it is manifest only because it serves a purpose--a purpose that it achieves by exploiting a certain way of interpreting or navigating by signs.

Ne, on the other hand, tells us that
[A physician using Ne], for example, may realize, with sudden insight, that several unexplained symptoms are actually part of a single disease... the physician has no doubt that the disease syndrome really exists. The pattern was always there, waiting for someone to discover it.... Extraverted Intuition (Ne) is the attitude that what is manifest (apparent, observable) is a reflection of a greater reality. The dinosaur bone hints at the dinosaur, the cloud hints at the coming thunderstorm, the thunderstorm is a reflection of the rotation of the Earth within its atmosphere. Whatever you find, there is something more to find: a broader context, a whole, which will change your understanding of the part.

Here's a short explanation of why I don't think personality theory is a perfect model of anything: it's overly simplistic.
At the most basic level you have the eight functions. Now in a world where personality theory was a perfect model of human thought and behavior, every individual would all have a clear hierarchy of the functions. Each personality type would only be able to use four functions; ours would be Ti, Ne, Si and Fe, in that order. Other functions, like Ni, would simply be absent from our minds. We wouldn't "have" them, because they would have no place in the system. Each of our preferences, then, except possibly the E/I scale, would not exist on a continuum but as an either-or choice. What, after all, would a INXP be? What would his dominant function be, Ti or Fi? Would Fe be his weak point, coming out only in times of stress? Or would that be Te? What would his attitude be towards emotions? Are they to be hidden and controlled, or welcomed with open arms? None of these questions can be answered by the MBTI system.

That's not to say that I don't think the MBTI is a good system. I think it's a great way of explaining people's behavior. But it's not perfect.

[paladinoflunaria]

So in this scenario, everyone fits completely within the definition of each of the personality types. That would make the MBTI taxonomy perfect. In our world, not everyone fits completely within the definition of each of th personality types, but that doesn't mean that no one does. The MBTI taxonomy is not perfect then, based on our perception. I agree with this. I am merely asking whether personality types were invented or discovered- whether you believe in absolute truth or whether you think that it's all relative. I would think that many would go with the absolute truth idea. If there isn't any absolute truth, then Sophism must define reality, and therefore no matter what we do, we cannot escape subjectivism. If this is the case, intuition, thinking, and sensing become worthless functions, and we should all be 100% Fi. Therefore, there would definitely be some objective truth- that Fi is the only worthwhile function, and that we cannot escape subjectivism- and there is a contradiction there.

Do you think that there are personality types that have properties unseen in any of the MBTI 16?

[spaced]

I am merely asking whether personality types were invented or discovered- whether you believe in absolute truth or whether you think that it's all relative.

Those are two separate questions. I agree with you that total relativism is self-defeating, but that doesn't entail that personality types were not invented. They can refer to real human characteristics and still be somewhat arbitrary.

[paladinoflunaria]

True.

[Miss Padfoot]

I liked the explanation of how saying there is no objective truth creates an objective truth (Fi is the only worthwhile function). Very nice.

I think that there are absolute truths, but I don't think personality theories are among them. In fact, I'm not sure what they are. I'm having trouble getting my mind around all this at the moment. *sigh* Sorry.

[paladinoflunaria]

I liked the explanation of how saying there is no objective truth creates an objective truth (Fi is the only worthwhile function). Very nice.


Thank you. I was reading up on Nihilism (Wiki) and found out that I derived the liar paradox:


Therefore, there would definitely be some objective truth- that Fi is the only worthwhile function, and that we cannot escape subjectivism- and there is a contradiction there.

If there is no objective truth, then it is objective truth that there is no objective truth.

From Wiki:

Nihilism is often described as a belief in the nonexistence of truth. In its most extreme form, such a belief is difficult to justify, because it contains a variation on the liar paradox: if it is true that truth does not exist, the statement "truth does not exist" is a truth, thereby proving itself incorrect.

QED[/b]

[INTrPosr]

.....Essentially what I'm asking is whether personality types are objective or subjective. I'd say they're objective. I'm an INTP because I have dominant Ti, etc.

It's my understanding that introverted functions are subjective (i.e. Ti,Si,Fi,etc.), whereas extraverted functions are objective. From that standpoint I would say that your dominant function, coupled with whether one utilizes their auxilary function, predisposes us to whether we are subjective or objective.

[Edmond Zedo]

So far, 16 type is entirely subjective and unscientific, but that doesn't mean it's invalid.

If there were a way to truly isolate, say, neural structure or DNA in relation to type, it would become objective.

[booyalab]

I think the existance of personality is objective, but our attempts to understand and define it are based on limited knowledge of human behavior and therefore subjective.

[EdwinJefferson]

My reasoning is its egg before the chicken. People act a certain way and have then been put into a group by someone who has noticed that people can be grouped together. The reasoning why people have similar personalities is interesting. Looking at the parents thread, it seems apparent that children are likely to pick up different aspects of their parents personalities (which is both obvious and makes sense). It would be interesting to compare those children who have spent more time away from their parents whilst growing up to those who have spent a lot of time with them, in order to see whether personality is hereditary or influenced by those they are around.

Sorry. I'm dumb and British.

[Sackanaka]

is "define" inclusive or exclusive, as in "personality helps to define" vs "personality totally defines"?
I'm gonna have to assume the former to avoid pissing off others and myself who believe in individual differences.
Plus, I'm not sure why yet but it seems like the two options are from unrelated standpoints; of different questions altogether.
There doesn't seem to be a logical answer to this. People obviously researched and developed operational definitions for each of the dichotomies of MB personality typing. People have traits such as personality type that, when compiled, define the person as a whole.
I'll have to refrain from choosing :/
The question is: were personality types invented by people, or were they discovered by people?
I guess it was just as invented as gravity was. meaning, still no clear answer from me :(