Fuck off with "you may not use stereotyping". Typing=stereotyping

[clockwork]

I see this going on:

There is this "political correctness" dominating MBTI forums that you "may not stereotype".

That is just F-emo-ness attacking Ti-logical-categorizing:
NOOOO its not harsh logic, its all fuzzy and warm and messy!

They are just trying to fuss-out the logic of the Jungian model with their F-ness.

E.g. they say:
- Te function is not commanding because not every Te-person is commanding all the timeeeee.
- Ne function is not creative, because other types can sometimes be creative as welllll.

Wake up! Its a model with functions as poles of absolute extremes!!! Not a person!!! No humans were harmed.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

No true Scotsman / moving the goalposts is faulty logic, but so is making hasty generalizations.

(For communal discussion purposes) Instead of dismissing a type-trait correlation because other types may exhibit the same trait, one could focus on differentiation; 'what makes that trait special for this type'? And instead of stereotyping people into one's cognitive biases, you could query others for their personal observations of types.

 

[clockwork]

No true Scotsman / moving the goalposts is faulty logic, but so is making hasty generalizations..

1)
A model is a generalization of reality by definition
I wasn't talking about any hasty generalizations, the model is not hasty in any way. And I was not talking about categorizing any human in (especially not hastily, unless i was trolling around for fun). Its purely theoretical talk about the model.

2)
"No true Scotsman / moving the goalposts is faulty logic" > Can you explain this, why am I moving the goalposts? I talk within the Jungian definitions of the model (lets say chapter 10 & 11 of Psychological types), I never move the Jungian definitions.

 

[Cherry Cola]

I never noticed this.

Why would you need to stereotype anyway? Isn't generalizing just better?

 

[QuickTwist]

The reasons the general public doesn't like stereotypes is because a lot of people get carried away with it and they start making all sorts of assumptions about people. The idea is, better safe than sorry.

 

[clockwork]

The reasons the general public doesn't like stereotypes is because a lot of people get carried away with it and they start making all sorts of assumptions about people. The idea is, better safe than sorry.

Yes I understand, its to avoid havoc in SF land. But so because the SF population can't handle it, Ti's may not type? How to solve this

 

[redbaron]

Most people dislike stereotypes because more often than not they're inaccurate in too many contexts to be relevant. People don't disagree because stereotypes are bad, rather your (general your) stereotypes are bad.

Logic is very context-dependent. It's quite easy to make arguments that are logical, if one defines the underlying axiom that enables the logic. In such a case it's possible to create a case that is logical when viewed from the perspective that the underlying axiom is an already proven objective truth - however this is rarely the case.

You could use religion as an example. If one believes the bible to be true and that it is the word of god, then it's possible to make a logical argument that we're all going to hell. Based on the provided axioms (that the bible is true and is the word of god) this is a completely logical argument - except the underlying axiom is disputable.

This is the reason people often dispute stereotypical thinking, because quite often when a person comes up with or uses a stereotype, it's validity is founded on questionable axioms - people like to question the questionable.

 

[Base groove]

Your examples in the op have been portrayed inaccurately, by you, in an apparent effort to make a stronger point. Yet another Ti fail at the hands of dominant Ne. Reign-it-in. Control yourself.

One job of Ti is to present its arguments in such a way that they simply can not be disputed.

That is all.

~ EDIT ~

I guess it was not [all]... as I think I should clarify.

E.g. they say:
- Te function is not commanding because not every Te-person is commanding all the timeeeee.

I know which thread this exchange refers to. Do you remember announcing that Te is commanding because 99% of Te users always give commands? That was YOUR reasoning. Now you've gone and twisted it around, you MORON. People will catch on to inconsistency and use it against you if you flail around unchecked like this.

~~ EDIT 2 ~~

Hammering the point home.

If you were going to be fair you would have said this:

Te function is not commanding because every Te-person is commanding all the time.

instead of this:

Te function is not commanding because not every Te-person is commanding all the timeeeee.

Because it would have been a clear and accurate representation of the argument being referenced.

 

[clockwork]

That was YOUR reasoning. Now you've gone and twisted it around, you MORON. People will catch on to inconsistency and use it against you if you flail around unchecked like this.

ha wow, you are super serious

 

[Hawkeye]

ha wow, you are super serious

Supercilious

 

[QuickTwist]

I will say this, some guy new to the forum tried to say you can't make generalizations on INTPs (paraphrasing) and Architect made short work of that guy. Don't be that guy.

 

[Hawkeye]

Galileo said the Sun was the centre of our solar system and the church condemned him. Be that guy.

 

[Cavallier]

Peopel don't like being dismissed.

"Oh you're a XXXX and that's why you feel that way/do that thing/are stupid."

People like to think they are more complicated then that. Also, fuck off. I was having a nice nap.

 

[RaBind]

In more broader and general terms though, stereotyping, which is generalizing about certain groups of individuals, is functionally necessary. Well there's probably a fine line in there somewhere, it's not that hard to work out what is negative and what just helpful. Saying all stereotypes are false is giving in to a desire to be ignorant, for the sake of wanting to have the moral high ground. If you don't use what you know, you're no different from someone who is plain old stupid. "A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read."-Mark Twain

I'm pretty wary about political correctness in the first place, well anything that gathers movement collectively and functions in an unquestioning manner to be honest. It has the mob like, collective, mentality to it. An element of unpredictability, yet at the same time a sense of righteousness in their beliefs and actions, traits that have led to heinous incidents many times in the past.

Hasn't it already been said so many times that MBTI's categorizations of individuals is not hard science? Fundamentally the evaluation relies on behaviors and opinions, which many not actually be accurate depictions of who the individuals are. I see MBTI as more of a broad generalization of similar people. A person may be biologically hardwired to be a certain type, but as long as they behave, which includes patterns of thought, a certain way, there is a certain degree of validity in typing the person depending on the behaviors.

 

[QuickTwist]

Peopel don't like being dismissed.

"Oh you're a XXXX and that's why you feel that way/do that thing/are stupid."

People like to think they are more complicated then that. Also, fuck off. I was having a nice nap.

I don't knwo who that was addressed to. Me or someone else?

 

[Hadoblado]

OP doesn't have Ti, because someone with Ti would be right.

 

[TimeAsylums]

OP doesn't have Ti, because someone with Ti would be right.

[bimgx=300]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-f-kOhBdHiiY/T3rgdG6rvmI/AAAAAAAABGc/oxNa9FE89T4/s1600/laughing-lol-crazy-l.png[/bimgx]

 

[Cavallier]

I don't knwo who that was addressed to. Me or someone else?

He said:

Wake up! Its a model with functions as poles of absolute extremes!!! Not a person!!! No humans were harmed.

Therefore I responded with:

Also, fuck off. I was having a nice nap.

 

[TimeAsylums]

fuck off i was having a nice nap

those skulls sure are comfortable

 

[Cavallier]

^Eyebrow ridges can be pointier than one might think.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

In more broader and general terms though, stereotyping, which is generalizing about certain groups of individuals, is functionally necessary. Well there's probably a fine line in there somewhere, it's not that hard to work out what is negative and what just helpful. Saying all stereotypes are false is giving in to a desire to be ignorant, for the sake of wanting to have the moral high ground. If you don't use what you know, you're no different from someone who is plain old stupid. "A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read."-Mark Twain

I'm pretty wary about political correctness in the first place, well anything that gathers movement collectively and functions in an unquestioning manner to be honest. It has the mob like, collective, mentality to it. An element of unpredictability, yet at the same time a sense of righteousness in their beliefs and actions, traits that have led to heinous incidents many times in the past.

Hasn't it already been said so many times that MBTI's categorizations of individuals is not hard science? Fundamentally the evaluation relies on behaviors and opinions, which many not actually be accurate depictions of who the individuals are. I see MBTI as more of a broad generalization of similar people. A person may be biologically hardwired to be a certain type, but as long as they behave, which includes patterns of thought, a certain way, there is a certain degree of validity in typing the person depending on the behaviors.

I think there are different kinds of generalizing though, the most common one in MBTI circles being negative.

The types were mostly developed as archetypes, similarities were extracted from the general population and made into categories. Now that the types are already developed (i.e. MBTI), people are trying to confirm their understanding of the types by ascribing traits to people they have not even met or have barely come to know.

Yes generalization in this field is unavoidable, and MBTI isn't hard science, but the problem with stereotyping is that people either don't realize or don't care that they are biased. If you don't care about your prejudice then it's a moral/social issue like you mention; if you don't realize it, then I think it's important to keep aware of faulty thinking because discussing MBTI is as much an intellectual matter as it is a social one.

1)
A model is a generalization of reality by definition
I wasn't talking about any hasty generalizations, the model is not hasty in any way. And I was not talking about categorizing any human in (especially not hastily, unless i was trolling around for fun). Its purely theoretical talk about the model.

2)
"No true Scotsman / moving the goalposts is faulty logic" > Can you explain this, why am I moving the goalposts? I talk within the Jungian definitions of the model (lets say chapter 10 & 11 of Psychological types), I never move the Jungian definitions.

Hasty generalizations refer to people making stereotypes, No true Scotsman refers to people who dismiss those stereotypes. Either one on typology boards is usually done without critical thinking.

 

[Base groove]

Typing: using the MBTI to type somebody
Stereotyping: making statements like all X = XX and all Y = YY, so if YY then Y and if XX then X.

Also,

ha wow, you are super serious

Here is something I am serious about:

Having my arguments misrepresented.
Being misquoted.

 

[pernoctator]

"Typing=stereotyping" -- semantics. Stereotyping has a negative connotation; it implies prejudice.

To put it in strictly "Ti-logical-categorizing" terms for you: a stereotype is a description of a subcategory applied to a larger category. Hint: there are more than 16 types of people.

 

[clockwork]

-

 

[clockwork]

-

 

[Architect]

I see this going on:

There is this "political correctness" dominating MBTI forums that you "may not stereotype".
...
Wake up! Its a model with functions as poles of absolute extremes!!! Not a person!!! No humans were harmed.

I made this point recently when taken to task for making a point about the INTP type. Worse, people took my statement about how INTP's don't generally like exercise and certainly not team sports to an extreme (INTP's don't ever exercise). I said something to the effect that MBTI is a statistical science, but your statement is more pungent. Thank you.

 

[Base groove]

So stereotyping = the super super super EVIL thing (which I normally do not do)
But "using a stereotype" = not EVIL at all, and actually essential for typing!

yeah.....

I guess you mistake me to be of the adverse opinion in the OP, which I am not.

I haven't accused you of any sort of evil, per se.. I just think that the MBTI can be properly executed without resorting to stereotypes.

In effect, I actually agree with you itt. You might have interpreted my post to be an opinion against you but it was not. I said your examples were weak, because they were. I already told you I think you have good ideas you just need to prepare them for consumption with more care.

 

[clockwork]

-

 

[Cherry Cola]

I made this point recently when taken to task for making a point about the INTP type. Worse, people took my statement about how INTP's don't generally like exercise and certainly not team sports to an extreme (INTP's don't ever exercise). I said something to the effect that MBTI is a statistical science, but your statement is more pungent. Thank you.

You got that response because you've got a penchant for using the fact that INTPs aren't big on exercising to support dubious typings made by yourself such as when you deemed Space Yeti an ISTP.

 

[Architect]

You got that response because you've got a penchant for using the fact that INTPs aren't big on exercising to support dubious typings made by yourself such as when you deemed Space Yeti an ISTP.

No, the reference wasn't about S.Y., but yes I do believe he is an ISTP, who are like INTPs but with a strong Se in place of Ne, which you clearly see with him. My brother is an ISTP as are MANY of my colleagues over the years so I'm very familiar with the type. Also I stand by my assertion about INTPs and exercise, and if anyone disagrees then I think they're missing a core point about Typology, which is that it is a generalization Markov model.

In other words there are hidden variables - the functions and preferences - that we don't see. We instead have observed behaviors which aren't in 1-1 correspondence, but are the percepts used for inference. We use statistical heuristics to infer those hidden variables. This all means that typology is a generalized guess with probabilities, so one cannot take anything as hard fact.

 

[Jennywocky]

The functions are extreme stereotypes, I just said that, fully explained and all?

I prefer to call them archetypes and/or preferences, tbh.

Certainly a preference can be abused in the form of 'stereotype,' but that word specifically refers to an "over-generalization" and in popular usage typically to a negative, inaccurate degree of generalization (e.g., "racial profiling" -- exploiting a generalization to make judgments against a particularly labeled individual).

An archetype is simply the typical specimen for a particular category, which is a more neutral way to refer to it. An archetype can exist without everyone needing to match it, it's simply the form that captures all the typical traits of a particular category. it's understood that a person might not match the archetype -- it's a general approximation, not a literal one.

The type descriptions are archetypical. You will align in overall shape and form but typically not in the matter of having EVERY specific trait (and in some cases can run counter to the archetypical detail). There's a reason the term "best fit" has worked its way into MBTI discussions.

 

[Cherry Cola]

No, the reference wasn't about S.Y., but yes I do believe he is an ISTP, who are like INTPs but with a strong Se in place of Ne, which you clearly see with him. My brother is an ISTP as are MANY of my colleagues over the years so I'm very familiar with the type. Also I stand by my assertion about INTPs and exercise, and if anyone disagrees then I think they're missing a core point about Typology, which is that it is a generalization Markov model.

In other words there are hidden variables - the functions and preferences - that we don't see. We instead have observed behaviors which aren't in 1-1 correspondence, but are the percepts used for inference. We use statistical heuristics to infer those hidden variables. This all means that typology is a generalized guess with probabilities, so one cannot take anything as hard fact.

I know the reference wasn't about that. But you've made several posts about INTPs and exercise, no one has really disagreed with you in principle, you've just steadily given the impression of taking it too far and giving it too much weight as factor over the course of these posts. Hence what happened in the thread you referenced.

Regardless of whether you do take it too far or not, what happened hardly constitutes sufficient basis for you to say that people have issues with generalizations, wanting discussions to remain politically correct even at the cost of accuracy.

 

[Architect]

I know the reference wasn't about that. But you've made several posts about INTPs and exercise, no one has really disagreed with you in principle, you've just steadily given the impression of taking it too far and giving it too much weight as factor over the course of these posts. Hence what happened in the thread you referenced.

Regardless of whether you do take it too far or not, what happened hardly constitutes sufficient basis for you to say that people have issues with generalizations, wanting discussions to remain politically correct even at the cost of accuracy.

OK, no big deal, as long as we all understand that communication in this form is very error prone and lossy.

 

[pernoctator]

So stereotyping = the super super super EVIL thing (which I normally do not do)
But "using a stereotype" = not EVIL at all, and actually essential for typing!

I don't know what this thread is about anymore. If you acknowledge that stereotyping has a negative definition, why should we fuck off with "you may not use stereotyping"? What makes you think anyone is referring to your alternate definition?

 

[RaBind]

I think there are different kinds of generalizing though, the most common one in MBTI circles being negative.

I disagree. I think all generalizations are just that, they are assumptions made from our prior knowledge (also includes knowledge derived from sources such gossip) to aid our ability to cope with the unknown. There is no negative or positive generalizations or stereotypes, there are only accurate and inaccurate ones. A generalization or stereotype, which you, consider positive (associated with positive traits) is just as ignorant and may cause as much damage as a generalization or stereotype associated with bad traits. Another thing is that generalizations or stereotypes aren't simply positive or negative, rather they are simply different, as in having an advantage gives you a disadvantage somewhere else. So if you're describing generalizations or stereotypes as positive or negative based on the nature of traits associated, then you fail to understand that things come with both advantages and disadvantages.

The types were mostly developed as archetypes, similarities were extracted from the general population and made into categories. Now that the types are already developed (i.e. MBTI), people are trying to confirm their understanding of the types by ascribing traits to people they have not even met or have barely come to know.

Yeah I agree that that's bad. It is not the typing, or typing of individuals people have not even met or have barely come to know, that's bad per se, but the labeling of the evaluation. So it should be labeled as "based on you're behaviors I've observed here so far I'd type you as xxxx" rather than "you are a xxxx type".

Yes generalization in this field is unavoidable, and MBTI isn't hard science, but the problem with stereotyping is that people either don't realize or don't care that they are biased. If you don't care about your prejudice then it's a moral/social issue like you mention; if you don't realize it, then I think it's important to keep aware of faulty thinking because discussing MBTI is as much an intellectual matter as it is a social one.

As I said I'm talking more general, as in generalizing was developed to aid survival and actually is very useful, besides the usual couple of misunderstandings that happen here and there. I'd say it's more a fault in the labeling, as I've said above. Ultimately nothing is certain and people must be made aware of, and told to take things (especially knowledge not supported by hard facts and evidence) with a grain of salt.

 

[QuickTwist]

OK, no big deal, as long as we all understand that communication in this form is very error prone and lossy.

How so?

 

[Architect]

How so?

It's well known that talking to a person, or even speaking on a phone is a higher bandwidth communication than email or typing on a forum, where the emotional nuance of communication is almost lost. That's why emoticons were invented.

Here's a discussion on the topic.

 

[Base groove]

Yeah, but that can be used as a safe excuse in almost any scenario on a forum where somebody tries to hold you accountable for bs.

 

[pernoctator]

It's well known that talking to a person, or even speaking on a phone is a higher bandwidth communication than email or typing on a forum, where the emotional nuance of communication is almost lost. That's why emoticons were invented.

Here's a discussion on the topic.

That discussion is about two different perceptions, but we don't know which is more accurate. At least two of us were suspicious:

Are you sure?

Maybe you represent yourself accurately, and people just don't like you.

Bandwidth isn't the only factor. There is also pre-processing time. Text provides more time to convert the source data into externally readable information than real-time speech does; can you be sure that the lack of bandwidth always outweighs this? Consider, Skype uses CPU power to compress outgoing audio, much better than is possible with classic phones (because it would introduce too much lag): the result is a higher quality sound sent with less data.

Also, body language is far from unambiguous, and can act as interference rather than additional information. See "Are you ever accused of lying".