# Why typing is an opinion, not a fact.



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

rrr said:


> And over all, by analogy, Khalid being an INTP is closer to being an opinion than a fact.


Assuming you are Khalid, you are making a pretty good case for "Khalid is an INTP" being a factual statement, :laughing:


----------



## Pau7 (Jun 20, 2013)

Velasquez said:


> No. People have all kinds of biases when observing their own behaviour. There's no way anybody can do it completely objectively.





rrr said:


> How could you analyze and observe your behavior objectively from a subjective point of view? Like how you relate or feel about something you read? Should objectively mean something more like recording what things you do and don't do over a period of time and then checking with a list of things this or that function is responsible for or not?





whyalice said:


> I think it is a fact that objectivity is susceptible to personal bias


It's not that hard, you just narrow it down. 

For example, you'd ask yourself: do I think logically, typically? Do I show the typical characteristics of a thinker most of the time? Then you read up on the behavior of a thinker and go on youtube or look at the other forums with thinkers, and see if your overall behavior is something similar. Then you come to the conclusion - no, when the choice comes down to it, I usually try to be tactful and I'm more interested in people than impersonal things.

You do the same for the other letters of MBTI and voila, you have your type objectively. Then you look into cog. functions and continually make sure your overall behavior is something along the lines of what the descriptions are getting at.

You might think, oh, I really think I'm a feeler because I do xyz. But maybe you're actually a thinker, and just not analyzing everything equally because being a feeler is more appealing to you in this theory. All you have to do is figure out what you usually, naturally do (while not paying special attention to certain things) and what functions you usually execute. Tally every instance of each function use if you have to - numbers are objective. Therefore, type is, in _reality _(not your subjective mind), a fact, not an opinion.


----------



## Velasquez (Jul 3, 2012)

Teybo said:


> Assuming you are Khalid, you are making a pretty good case for "Khalid is an INTP" being a factual statement, :laughing:


Nah, I think Khalid is a Te user. He hates MBTI because it's not measurable in the outside world and you can't prove what somebody's type is. Te, not Ti.


----------



## Velasquez (Jul 3, 2012)

Pau7 said:


> It's not that hard, you just narrow it down.


Yes it is. If you think that you can analyse yourself objectively like that then you're completely deluded.


----------



## Pau7 (Jun 20, 2013)

Velasquez said:


> Yes it is. If you think that you can analyse yourself objectively like that then you're completely deluded.


Did you read my whole post?


----------



## Velasquez (Jul 3, 2012)

Pau7 said:


> Did you read my whole post?


Yes. Your last paragraph is a nightmare because it works from the assumption that _everybody can remember everything that they've ever done in their whole entire life ever. _People's memories are inaccurate, and when you recall memories you're obviously going to be biased as to which ones you remember exactly.


----------



## Pau7 (Jun 20, 2013)

Velasquez said:


> Yes. Your last paragraph is a nightmare because it works from the assumption that _everybody can remember everything that they've ever done in their whole entire life ever. _People's memories are inaccurate, and when you recall memories you're obviously going to be biased as to which ones you remember exactly.


You don't have to go by memory, just analyze what you do during the day as you go along.

It might be harder for non Se users to do this, because you have to look at your behavior and take it at face value for what it is, not what it could be.


----------



## rrr (Aug 22, 2013)

Pau7 said:


> It's not that hard, you just narrow it down.
> 
> For example, you'd ask yourself: do I think logically, typically? Do I show the typical characteristics of a thinker most of the time? Then you read up on the behavior of a thinker and go on youtube or look at the other forums with thinkers, and see if your overall behavior is something similar. Then you come to the conclusion - no, when the choice comes down to it, I usually try to be tactful and I'm more interested in people than impersonal things.
> 
> ...


Look, man: you seem to be confusing fact with truth, or opinion with valueless. But look at politics: it's full of opinions of what is right and what is wrong. People debate whether abortion is right or wrong and many people find that a very serious issue, however most of the debate is just opinions, not facts. Actually 99% of the stuff you read or hear is an opinion, not a fact.


----------



## Velasquez (Jul 3, 2012)

Pau7 said:


> You don't have to go by memory, just analyze what you do during the day as you go along.
> 
> It might be harder for non Se users to do this, because you have to look at your behavior and take it at face value for what it is, not what it could be.


Okay, well in that case I'd say that if you think that you can accurately and objectively analyse your own behaviour in real time like that, then you're deluded. As a super simplification...a lot of your behaviour and decision making is determined or at least strongly influenced by your subconscious, and then your conscious brain comes up with its own explanations as to why you acted that way. There's just no way you can be objective about your own behaviour, because you just don't have access to a large part of your decision making process.

Also, I hate your last sentence here. What you're effectively saying is 'I am right but you don't agree with me because you don't have wonderful Se like I do'. Come on...

Edit: Also, specific functions aren't tied to specific behaviours. It's not like 'oh I just solved a maths problem so I must have been using Ti'. So when you do something or think something, how on earth do you claim to know exactly how those thoughts or actions are working on a functional level?


----------



## rrr (Aug 22, 2013)

Pau7 said:


> You don't have to go by memory, just analyze what you do during the day as you go along.
> 
> It might be harder for non Se users to do this, because you have to look at your behavior and take it at face value for what it is, not what it could be.


Then non-Se users can't type themselves? Who can type them then? And if someone else can type you, then why should Se users type themselves and thus produce more subjectivity to that "fact"? And if nobody can type you but yourself, and non-Se users would be less accurate in this, then what if a non-Se user typed themselves as an Se user (out of there inherent non-Se-ness)? What do we make out of that? Do we just take their word for it?


----------



## Pau7 (Jun 20, 2013)

rrr said:


> Look, man: you seem to be confusing fact with truth, or opinion with valueless. But look at politics: it's full of opinions of what is right and what is wrong. People debate whether abortion is right or wrong and many people find that a very serious issue, however most of the debate is just opinions, not facts. Actually 99% of the stuff you read or hear is an opinion, not a fact.


Okay, so?

Truths and facts are essentially the same thing. 'True' is defined as: in accordance with fact or reality.

It just doesn't make sense at all to consider typing an opinion. Yes, typing is a subjective process, and therefore makes it difficult to discern the objective truth behind who you are, but that doesn't make it any less of a fact when you get there.


----------



## Pau7 (Jun 20, 2013)

rrr said:


> Then non-Se users can't type themselves? Who can type them then? And if someone else can type you, then why should Se users type themselves and thus produce more subjectivity to that "fact"? And if nobody can type you but yourself, and non-Se users would be less accurate in this, then what if a non-Se user typed themselves as an Se user (out of there inherent non-Se-ness)? What do we make out of that? Do we just take their word for it?


You're pulling a huge strawman, which is a fallacy. I never said "Se users can't type themselves."


----------



## Velasquez (Jul 3, 2012)

Pau7 said:


> You're pulling a huge strawman, which is a fallacy. I never said "Se users can't type themselves."


No, you didn't say 'Se users can't type themselves', but 'Se users can't type themselves' followed logically from what you _did_​ say.

Edit: I think you meant 'non-Se users'.


----------



## toma (Sep 18, 2013)

I do not explain my thoughts so well but this dude on the video does...




.


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

And all this time I thought I was studying personality fact... Silly me. It's been theory all along.

I want wine.


----------



## Pau7 (Jun 20, 2013)

Velasquez said:


> Okay, well in that case I'd say that if you think that you can accurately and objectively analyse your own behaviour in real time like that, then you're deluded. As a super simplification...a lot of your behaviour and decision making is determined or at least strongly influenced by your subconscious, and then your conscious brain comes up with its own explanations as to why you acted that way. There's just no way you can be objective about your own behaviour, because you just don't have access to a large part of your decision making process.


You can still easily define a function for what it is when you use it.



Velasquez said:


> Also, I hate your last sentence here. What you're effectively saying is 'I am right but you don't agree with me because you don't have wonderful Se like I do'. Come on...


No, that's not what I was saying. I was saying that it might be harder for some people to take things at face value, for what they are, when usually they perceive things differently. It's a neutral comment. I didn't mean any offence 



Velasquez said:


> Edit: Also, specific functions aren't tied to specific behaviours. It's not like 'oh I just solved a maths problem so I must have been using Ti'. So when you do something or think something, how on earth do you claim to know exactly how those thoughts or actions are working on a functional level?


You match it to the description. For example:

I just observed this tree. It is brown, bumpy, and has roots. I just used Se because I looked at the tree and that's exactly what it is.

I knew within my framework of logic, as well as the external logic of the theory itself, that rrr's premise is incorrect. I used Ti and Te.

I have this image in my mind, the very thought of flying in a spaceship through a future city on some distant planet...that would truly allow me to be free, and I would find myself within the movement from one place to another. I would know who I am and what I am meant to be. Since I hold 'freedom' as one of my highest personal values (Fi), I used my Ni to seek an image of the full manifestation of freedom.



Velasquez said:


> No, you didn't say 'Se users can't type themselves', but 'Se users can't type themselves' followed logically from what you _did_​ say.
> 
> Edit: I think you meant 'non-Se users'.


No, that's a strawman because he wrote that I wrote Y when I really wrote X.

I wrote, "it might be harder for non Se-users to type themselves this way."

He wrote, "oh, so you're saying non Se users can't type themselves?"

Anyway, this is topic bothering me more than it should, for some reason. If you'll excuse me, I'm gonna do something else before I get more annoying...


----------



## 0+n*1 (Sep 20, 2013)

My opinion, that's partially impressionistic, is that typing could not be objective.


----------



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

There's a saying a lot of teachers have these days: fact is just widely accepted theory. Facts don't necessarily exist because we're making new discoveries all the time. What we're working with are the ideas that seem to correlate most strongly with data humans have put together.

If I was getting all philosophical, I could say the juice only has a lot of sugar in it because I've been told that/seen it in a test constructed by humans to look for sugar content.

Also, I forget who, but someone pointed out this is a personality theory, therefore the name gives it away - no, it's not a fact. Personally, I see both theories and facts as guidelines to work from.

Plus, a whole lot of facts out there are potentially more harmful than a personality theory - take the debate over whether or not to drink while pregnant.

Although the idea someone couldn't type themselves is kind of... well. I say I'm shy, I have shown actions that indicate shyness, I have been told I'm shy by other people - how do you prove something like that?


----------



## Velasquez (Jul 3, 2012)

Pau7 said:


> You match it to the description. For example:
> 
> I just observed this tree. It is brown, bumpy, and has roots. I just used Se because I looked at the tree and that's exactly what it is.
> 
> ...


Oh my god. No. No no no no no!!!! No.



Pau7 said:


> Anyway, this is topic bothering me more than it should, for some reason. If you'll excuse me, I'm gonna do something else before I get more annoying...


That's fair enough. If I was as wrong about everything as you have been in this thread, I'd be bothered too.


----------



## The Alternate (Jan 14, 2013)

Something can be both and opinion and a fact... like a half-fact or probable facts. I think it's better to take all of the different types into account.



JWC3 said:


> A good example is something along the lines of.
> 
> Opinion: Tallahassee is a long way away from Augusta.
> Fact: Tallahassee is exactly 1457.1 miles from Augusta.


This is also a good example for me, as 1457.1 miles is long enough that I don't think you should need to mention the # to prove it as a fact. Tallahassee IS a long way from Augusta, fact! Most people travel by walking, car, etc and are familiar with that... you can make assumptions about these things so that you don't need to be too technical when stating facts. It'd be different if we all had our own private jets, then somebody saying Tallahassee is a long way from Augusta would be more of an opinion, because you don't know how long their trek might be based on the way they travel.

In terms of MBTI, I think typing is an opinion, but I don't think it's pure opinion. Personality is something that cannot be easily contained by ANY system... so in the end, the reporting of ourselves by others or us will always be somewhat subjective, but that doesn't mean it will be completely inaccurate or opinionated. Even incomplete information can tell you something - more than nothing - or change your way of thinking to realize new pieces of information you wouldn't have. You can also be accurate in something even if it the system favors subjectivity. If a lot of people agree about something according to a system, maybe it's because you're figuring out the "most right" subjective response?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

TreasureTower said:


> But what is your opinion of the Enneagram? I really consider it ridiculous, to suggest that is no better than astrology.
> 
> http://personalitycafe.com/enneagram-personality-theory-forum/162879-why-do-you-prefer-enneagram.html


I'm not much of an Enneagram expert, and haven't ever suggested it's no better than astrology. Because its overlap with the Big Five and MBTI dimensions is sloppy, I'm inclined to think that means it's probably the Enneagram that's somewhat mixed up but, even if that's true, that wouldn't necessarily mean that, for any particular person who relates (at least partly) to any particular Enneagram type, Enneagram sources might not have insightful things to say about them.

As far as respectable studies and that kind of thing, my understanding is that, unlike the Big Five and MBTI, the Enneagram hasn't received much serious attention from professional psychologists. Again, though, I've never spent much time looking into the Enneagram.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

Also, I think the thing to remember when doubting whether a theory falls under X or Y kind of science (soft, hard, pseudo, whatever)..is that insight is insight, and until further demonstration basically distinct from how tested something is. Tested is tested -- one can test something millions of times, but this does not necessarily imply it's more or less insightful to a given individual.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

bearotter said:


> This is for my info: if I read the MBTI manual cover to cover (which you might very well have), and/or spoke to some kind of professional who practices MBTI, would you say the manual would claim that type dynamics does describe the types as defined primarily with the dichotomies approach, and/or the person who practices would validate using the functions to type people at this stage in time? If the latter or former is true, then would you happen to know the basis of this theory still existing
> in a professional/official context?




The 1985 edition of the MBTI Manual didn't really even have descriptions of the eight functions (or otherwise have much to say about type dynamics), and I don't believe that changed in the third edition.

As far as type dynamics "still existing" in an "official" context, my understanding is that it's mostly in just about everybody's best interests among MBTI practitioners to express the attitude (at least publicly) that the dichotomies and the functions and Berens' interaction styles and etc. are all one big happy family and each may have valuable things to say to somebody interested in forking over money to one or more typologists. The well-known functions folks generally don't badmouth (or dismiss) the value of the dichotomies, and the official MBTI materials, while they often more or less ignore type dynamics, generally don't make negative statements about it.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

@_reckful_: where do the functions folks get their inspiration then? Beebe? Lenore? How do they define the functions (and/or their interrelations that constitute a potential definition of 1 of the 16 types) if the MBTI manual doesn't make much mention?


----------



## yet another intj (Feb 10, 2013)

orni said:


> That's just, like, your opinion, man.







My work here is done... Up, up and away!


----------



## MrsAndrewJacoby (Apr 11, 2013)

Ace Face said:


> And all this time I thought I was studying personality fact... Silly me. It's been theory all along.
> 
> I want wine.


^Yeah, pretty much this. 

MBTI isn't 'hard factual' science like: X atoms vibrate at X cycles per second. But it is a viable _theory_. Just like pretty much anything else having to do with psychology or sociology.


----------



## Manifestation (Jul 4, 2013)

Fact: The premise of this post is true
Opinion: The truth does not interest egotists


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Manifestation said:


> Fact: The premise of this post is true
> Opinion: The truth does not interest egotists


Who in this thread is suggesting anything, otherwise?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

bearotter said:


> @_reckful_: where do the functions folks get their inspiration then? Beebe? Lenore? How do they define the functions (and/or their interrelations that constitute a potential definition of 1 of the 16 types) if the MBTI manual doesn't make much mention?


I don't claim to know much about the history of the back-to-Jung bunch. Myers, as I described in that long linked INTJforum post, gave the functions quite a bit of lip service in Gifts Differing before mostly leaving them behind, and I've always assumed that was because she surmised (probably rightly) that her typology would be more likely to find acceptance the closer to Jung it claimed to be.

The functions folks have mostly claimed to "get their inspiration" from Jung, but there's been an awful lot of disingenuousness there, in the sense that the function descriptions that, e.g., Thomson, Berens and Nardi use are, to a substantial degree — e.g., Si (as described in this post) and Te (see this post) — non-Jungian descriptions that seem to have been jerry-rigged to match up with the things that Myers described the supposedly corresponding types as having in common (e.g., the Thomson/Berens/Nardi Si descriptions, unlike Jung's, fit MBTI SJs). Similarly, and as you know from other posts of mine, the particular functions model that Thomson, Berens and Nardi subscribe to (where INTJ = Ni-Te-Fi-Se) matches neither Myers (INTJ = Ni-Te-Fe-Se) nor, IMHO, Jung (INTJ = most likely Ti-Ni-Se-Fe, or arguably Ni-Ti-Fe-Se).

As for who first came up with that jerry-rigged modern set of functions that internet forumites tend to be familiar with, I don't know. As I understand it, the Ni-Te-Fi-Se model came from Harold Grant, who both flipped the attitude of the tertiary function (as compared to Myers) and took the functions seriously in a way that Myers really hadn't. Perhaps Grant was, at least to some extent, the originator of the modern function descriptions (but I don't really know).


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Harold Grant is the originator of what we now refer to as type dynamics, though I should point out that type dynamics is not necessarily accepted as gospel everywhere and by every practitioner. One of the reasons it has taken off is because a very influential set of people (Thomson, Beebe, Quenk, etc) sort of ran off with those ideas (or their interpretations of it) and it sort of became the de facto standard of interpreting MBTI in published literature. 

Grant's ideas are very philosophical. He was trying to draw a somewhat religious allegory to type, and sort of makes some curious choices in doing so. He also regards his placing the third function as the same as the first as essentially Myers', but as far as I can tell Myers really had little interest in the third and fourth function beyond sort of being representative of a troublemaking or darker-side (which is somewhat Jungian). 

A critique of Harold Grant's book Image and Likeness better illustrates the underlying ideas that provoked Grant about the nature of type and how he interpreted it.


> Image and Likeness presumes that words and deeds attributed to Jesus of Nazareth in the Gospels are actually his words and deeds. It's an effusive text at times, exhortatory even, in terms of a spiritual guide. Its focus is on the notion of community, which I think heavily circumscribes its interpretations.
> 
> 
> Whilst its theology is by no means fundamental, presumptions are made where contemporary data on Jesus in his time (scanty at best) might indicate a need for caution. The texts of the New Testament, as might be expected, are actually treated a historically with respect to authors. So we're in mythos, perhaps where we should be with this sort of text. Curiously, the mythos includes Henry Thoreau: no surprise to
> ...


On type dynamics


> *Psychological Type theory and "Image to Likeness"*
> 
> 
> In the first part of this book, the authors set out four models, which they are going to use. The second and third are Jung's "personality types" and a" developmental typology...of four successive stages of development between the ages of six and fifty." The latter model, they acknowledge as being less connected to the Jungian tradition, thus inferring some originality and use of other ideas as well as it being an outcome of experiential research i.e. workshops and retreats they have conducted. The "personality type" descriptions are brief and enclosed with religious language.The preferences are "endowments", for instance. There's no doubt here that they are gifts from God.
> ...


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

rrr said:


> An opinion would be something like: This juice tastes better than that juice.
> A fact would be like: This juice has more sugar in it than that juice.
> 
> An opinion would be like: That girl is beautiful.
> ...


Someone does not get the point of heuristics and conceptual thinking.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

Flatlander said:


> Someone does not get the point of heuristics and conceptual thinking.


Which makes me think Ti and possibly an NF.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

@rrr

I'm just wondering what the point is, really. Would it be better if people presented their typology observations in such a way as to add more unnecessary words? "If there is anything to these typology theories, then its my opinion that you are an xxxx." I mean you're here too, which obviously means you're interested in typology - so whats the real issue?

Those who take typology as seriously as science are probably very few and far between, seeing as any actual understanding of science would show them that typology is not scientific. I have seen a few try to measure brain waves in different types, then try to say theres something to it - which was all bologna. I think one _tried_ to say he found something, but I had someone whos actually somewhat well-versed in neuroscience take a look and he said it was nothing.

I'm not even sure if all of this is the extent of your point though. I suspect that your issue with it is a problem that you perceive as a symptom of people taking typology as hard fact, not theory. If it doesn't mean that much to you however, what -is- the problem with some of them taking it too seriously?


----------



## RogueWave (Mar 16, 2011)

I think what the OP means is that typology is not falsifiable. 

That's a standard criticism of typology, and very few make the claim that it is. 

Anyone can claim to be any type they wish. But there is no statement or conclusive evidence that will prove them wrong. In fact, anything presented as evidence can easily be made to be for or against the typing with no objective means of asserting which is correct. 

There is no evidence of type. There are only _rationalizations_ of type, explanations for the occurrence of the reported behavior that are given through a typological lens. 

You see the consequences of this frequently unfold in "type-me" threads.

Someone fills out a questionnaire, and based on the answers given as well as anecdotal stories of behavior, thread responders offer _rationalizations _for the op's type.

There are reasonable and unreasonable rationalizations, as well as informed and uninformed opinions. The distinction between these is admittedly subjective, resulting in the ever present dissension in type-me threads. 

Basically, the lack of falsifiabilty in typology is widely acknowledged, which means those that practice it learn its limitations, have fun with it, and use it as an interesting means for self exploration rather than some set in stone wicked serious caste system for humans. 

That's it.


----------



## Antipode (Jul 8, 2012)

Do you know what a circle is?

Can you picture what a perfect circle looks like in your head?

When you see circles in real life, do you call them a circle? If you do, then that's your opinion, since there is no "perfect" circle in real life; however, because it is close to the real thing, we still use the shadow of the truth as truth for ease of terminology. 

So while everyone understands Myers Briggs is not fact, most of us here feel it is closer to the truth than what other theories are out there. 

If you are truly against people using these terms as means of fact without explicitly saying its opinion each and every time, then you better call every circle you see a faux circle or else you're just being hypocritical


----------



## elixare (Aug 26, 2010)

Typing is both opinion and fact

Your typing of others is an opinion which may or may not correspond with the fact that a person is of a certain type...However independent of your typing opinion, a person processes information/formulates decisions that is consistent with a certain type and is therefore objectively of a certain type - hence that person is of type X regardless of what your opinion of his type is - this truth that a person is objectively of Type X is a fact. It is up to you to try to calibrate your opinion to match with the fact of a person's type as much as possible.


----------



## rrr (Aug 22, 2013)

Scelerat said:


> Which makes me think Ti and possibly an NF.


Can you please elaborate more on this?


----------



## rrr (Aug 22, 2013)

Flatlander said:


> Someone does not get the point of heuristics and conceptual thinking.


Can you please tell me how you find these two things related to my post?


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

rrr said:


> Can you please tell me how you find these two things related to my post?


An understanding of type, and being able to see through to one's own type, adds to one's own heuristics and conceptual thinking, especially the subset that considers the world on a psychological level. What does it matter to this purpose if type is a hard material fact, or how exactly measurable it is?


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

What a not anywhere near new idea this thread was. Sorry, but this is kind of duh? for anyone who does this stuff.


----------

