MBTI Needs To Change

[Ren]

I'm saying that nomothetical explanations have thus far been unduly prominent and privileged (since '45), to the extent that we now have this meta-construct of 'universal human nature' that is very difficult to approach critically.

Take the MBTI - do the types adequately encapsulate personality variation in, say, a tribe of sub-Saharan African cannibalistic headhunters?

Now, your instinct in thinking about this question should reveal your nomothetic/idiographic bias:

If you immediately thought 'yes', you probably really believe in a 'strong' universal human nature and the ability of MBTI to describe it.

On the other hand, if you thought 'I don't know, I would have to learn more about these people' or something along those lines, you are essentially taking an idiographic or empirical view of things, despite any professed beliefs.

Based on this, I would say that I am hopelessly nomothetic in temperament. Though I do try to temper it.

If I grasp the distinction correctly, a historian like Eric Hobsbawm would be more on the nomothetic side, while Howard Zinn would be more idiographic. What would be an example of a good mix of nomotethic and idiographic? Braudel's longue durée, mayhaps?

 

[Wyote]

I am hopelessly nomothetic in temperament. Though I do try to temper it.

Great way of putting it

 

[Ren]

Great way of putting it

Why thank you!

 

[Asa]

@Wyote - You don't think society has changed since 1917? I can write an essay about how society has changed since the 70s. We still have a long way to go, but we've come a long way with accepting more diversity and allowing individual choice.

@Sandie33 – What I'm really getting from this within the context of MBTI is that we need to consider how Feeling and Thinking work together, and F/T loops. I found very little discussion about F/T loops. (Most of what is available discusses INFPs.) I agree that our society would benefit from a focus on emotional growth and maturity, as well as a deeper understanding of the role emotions play in thought.
It's fascinating that Elliot couldn't make decision without his amygdala. This sends me down a rabbit hole studying the amydala's relationship with the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the effects of starvation, and so forth.

Thank you @Deleted member 16771, @Fidicen, @Ren and @Wyote for contributing to this thread.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

Based on this, I would say that I am hopelessly nomothetic in temperament. Though I do try to temper it.

If I grasp the distinction correctly, a historian like Eric Hobsbawm would be more on the nomothetic side, while Howard Zinn would be more idiographic. What would be an example of a good mix of nomotethic and idiographic? Braudel's longue durée, mayhaps?

Yes I think longue durée is a good example - it seems to capture the essential interplay between the surface-level idiographic factors and deeper nomothetic laws, addining up to an expression of 'dynamism' which makes sense.

In metaphysical terms, though, the essential distinction comes down to how you conceive of determinism.

A 'hard determinist' would say that, necessarily, all processes are nomothetic. There is only the nomothetic, because everything is the result of one law or another.

However, I think in this hard determinist conception, the case for an appreciation of the idiographic is even more strongly made, since there will be circumstances arising from the interaction between various nomothetic processes which will only ever happen once in the entire history of the universe (saving certain ideas of infinity of course). That is, even if everything is the outcome of an interaction between universal laws, many of these interactions are so unlikely that they can be hueristically treated as unique; that is, properly idiographic.

In terms of human personality, we must allow ourselves to be struck by the utter complexity of social forces acting upon the individual, and therefore consider just how 'idiographic' individual human personalities are.

Now, that is not to say that there is no such thing as universal human nature, merely that we should consider if the nomothetic factors are not merely overstated.

We're in the realms of thought-experiment here, but there is a case to be made that the vast majority of human behaviour is essentially an idiographic result of culture.

I'll give you an example. Take game theory and how it is used by economists and others to build fairly effective models of human behaviour. At base, the nomothetic axiom is very small here - it assumes that human beings are rational actors.

Now if we can extrapolate so much about behaviour based upon a simple axiom like this, then that necessarily shifts the causal burden much more heavily towards environmental idiographic/cultural factors in determining how human beings behave.

For instance, we could say that the technological environments of each historical era are much more causally responsible for human behaviour than any essential notions of 'universal human nature', because such behaviours are predicted by a very small number of simple axioms (e.g. Game theoretic rationality, &c.).

I'm playing devil's advocate here again, but nonetheless the change in perspective allows for a fuller appreciation of the power of idiographic factors.

 

[Sandie33]

It's fascinating that Elliot couldn't make decision without his amygdala. This sends me down a rabbit hole studying the amydala's relationship with the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the effects of starvation, and so forth.

Use caution Asa whilst in a rabbit hole, their wrought with twists and turns
And ,
In no way intending to derail nor make it about me, simply sharing a bit of my story. After my car accident 30 years ago, in attempts at recovery from temporary amnesia occurring right after it, (I couldn't identify my family members, fiancee, or relate to simple things like knowing my street address, what part of my body socks go on, even how to hold a spoon to eat!), I started my "recovery" process at the amydala and it's relationship to brain injury in the prefrontal lobe. After much research finding out that chronological memory is indexed in the medial temporal cortex, and abstract memory is indexed in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex it opened the web to how emotion relates to memory recall or lack of it. Which over the years sparked curiosity about personality and function stack analysis--why we think and behave the way we do in relation to event stimulus...the ncbi website has loads of links to researching the prefrontal cortex...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3202063/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2590602/

Spoiler: This is a good read as well

I ran across this while doing research on that book I'm trying to get published http://brainblogger.com/2015/01/24/how-does-post-traumatic-stress-disorder-change-the-brain/

I wish you well in your research, and hoping you'll share your results with us too?

 

[Asa]

I'll give you an example. Take game theory and how it is used by economists and others to build fairly effective models of human behaviour. At base, the nomothetic axiom is very small here - it assumes that human beings are rational actors.

Now if we can extrapolate so much about behaviour based upon a simple axiom like this, then that necessarily shifts the causal burden much more heavily towards environmental idiographic/cultural factors in determining how human beings behave.

Your post and @Sandie33's first post are beginning to overlap in an interesting way, particularly concerning the Natasha Sharma video.

The thing about mbti is that when applied correctly, it doesn't matter what a person wants to be, only what they are. Which itself matters very little.
One thing that is wrong about mbti, or some people's perceptions of it, is the importance people place on it.

Agree.

Yea, the way people interpret them can also be inaccurate. There is a lot of dysfunction between test administration and test interpretation, in most circumstances this is a complex hurdle.

Agree.

It could potentially, but no matter how well you formulate a test/questionnaire it will always suffer from the stupidity/ignorance of test takers to some degree

XD LOL!

@Sandie33 - No need to a apologize for sharing a personal experience. It's is relevant and fascinating. Thank you for the links.

 

[Wyote]

@Wyote - You don't think society has changed since 1917? I can write an essay about how society has changed since the 70s. We still have a long way to go, but we've come a long way with accepting more diversity and allowing individual choice

Lol I mean, there have been changes of course, but nothing really from a human behavioural standpoint. Laws, technology, infrastructure, those have, but people haven't much aside from having greater access to information, which might lead to better decisions theoretically. But there are also limits to this effect due to human limitations.

 

[Wyote]

the power of idiographic factors.

 

[Ren]

Are the questions that we find in dodgy online tests "part" of MBTI, by the way?

If yes, then I do think they could be improved, for marginally more reliable results. "I value justice over mercy" as a T versus F question is really quite grotesque, and there are countless examples of that.

Decades ago, introversion was considered a flaw. Now, introversion is desirable.

Honestly, I'm not sure if that's true. None of the people I know in real life consider introversion particularly desirable, while the majority of them consider extroversion desirable. I think there is a trend towards seeing introversion as something else than either a strength or a flaw, though... a gradual but perceptible trend.

 

[Wyote]

I think there is a trend towards seeing introversion as something else than either a strength or a flaw, though... a gradual but perceptible trend.

Introversion Acceptance!

 

[Ren]

Introversion Acceptance!

Haha, I relate!

Personally, I'm totally cool with being an introvert, but even some of my friends (a minority) would see me as an extrovert based on their false preconceptions of what introversion is.

Yes I think longue durée is a good example - it seems to capture the essential interplay between the surface-level idiographic factors and deeper nomothetic laws, addining up to an expression of 'dynamism' which makes sense.

In metaphysical terms, though, the essential distinction comes down to how you conceive of determinism.

A 'hard determinist' would say that, necessarily, all processes are nomothetic. There is only the nomothetic, because everything is the result of one law or another.

However, I think in this hard determinist conception, the case for an appreciation of the idiographic is even more strongly made, since there will be circumstances arising from the interaction between various nomothetic processes which will only ever happen once in the entire history of the universe (saving certain ideas of infinity of course). That is, even if everything is the outcome of an interaction between universal laws, many of these interactions are so unlikely that they can be hueristically treated as unique; that is, properly idiographic.

In terms of human personality, we must allow ourselves to be struck by the utter complexity of social forces acting upon the individual, and therefore consider just how 'idiographic' individual human personalities are.

Now, that is not to say that there is no such thing as universal human nature, merely that we should consider if the nomothetic factors are not merely overstated.

We're in the realms of thought-experiment here, but there is a case to be made that the vast majority of human behaviour is essentially an idiographic result of culture.

I'll give you an example. Take game theory and how it is used by economists and others to build fairly effective models of human behaviour. At base, the nomothetic axiom is very small here - it assumes that human beings are rational actors.

Now if we can extrapolate so much about behaviour based upon a simple axiom like this, then that necessarily shifts the causal burden much more heavily towards environmental idiographic/cultural factors in determining how human beings behave.

For instance, we could say that the technological environments of each historical era are much more causally responsible for human behaviour than any essential notions of 'universal human nature', because such behaviours are predicted by a very small number of simple axioms (e.g. Game theoretic rationality, &c.).

I'm playing devil's advocate here again, but nonetheless the change in perspective allows for a fuller appreciation of the power of idiographic factors.

Thanks for this, Hos. I appreciate your detailed explanations of the distinction between nomothetic vs. idiographic approaches.

If you allow me, my only issue would be that you're making the distinction sounds fairly dichotomous, while I would intuitively see it as a spectrum.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

Haha, I relate!

Personally, I'm totally cool with being an introvert, but even some of my friends (a minority) would see me as an extrovert based on their false preconceptions of what introversion is.



Thanks for this, Hos. I appreciate your detailed explanations of the distinction between nomothetic vs. idiographic approaches.

If you allow me, my only issue would be that you're making the distinction sounds fairly dichotomous, while I would intuitively see it as a spectrum.

Yeah, it's a spectrum. Not to Windelband I don't think - he described it as a dichotomy and didn't really go into how the two overlapped.

I think Frederick Suppe and the whole idea of 'model theoretic' thinking (the semantic view of theories) captures the spectrum quite well - that theories can be (and should be considered to be) limited and varied in scope and applicability; that is, each model/theory will have a various balance of nomothetic generalisability and idiographic particularity.

Considered this way, you can see how even something like Newtonian mechanics has a degree of the idiographic, because it works up to a point.

 

[Wyote]

nomothetic generalisability and idiographic particularity

Now you're speakin my language lolol

 

[Wyote]

Personally, I'm totally cool with being an introvert, but even some of my friends (a minority) would see me as an extrovert based on their false preconceptions of what introversion is.

ohhh yea buddy, that's a whole other can o worms

 

[Asa]

but nothing really from a human behavioural standpoint.

I don't think you are understanding me. Is fine.

Are the questions that we find in dodgy online tests "part" of MBTI, by the way?

If yes, then I do think they could be improved, for marginally more reliable results. "I value justice over mercy" as a T versus F question is really quite grotesque, and there are countless examples of that.

As far as I can tell, a lot of this fluff is based on outsider (as in, not official) stereotypes of MBTI, but it still has a huge influence on how MBTI is understood.

 

[Wyote]

I don't think you are understanding me. Is fine.

Yea, we were both just coming at it from different mind sets

 

[Asa]

Yea, we were both just coming at it from different mind sets

Yup. Fuck it. Hahahaha. ((Throws all the MBTI paperwork in the air, goes to get everyone coffee, or beer, or wine, or juice. Take your pick.))

 

[Wyote]

Yup. Fuck it. Hahahaha. ((Throws all the MBTI paperwork in the air, goes to get everyone coffee, or beer, or wine, or juice. Take your pick.))

I find that I very rarely actually disagree with people. It's more often that there is a mismatch between whatever each person is choosing to focus on at the time.

I'm just looking at it like, yeah it needs to change in some ways if it is going to stay alive in some sense, but to me it's more important that people themselves change their understanding of it, because changing mbti itself will make it something new. I don't disagree that some new thing will be better suited for what mbti does now. There are already models with better predictors and so forth. These models build on top of one another to form improved versions, in essence. So you could say mbti is "dying" but you'd have to in some sense have believed it was a perfect model to begin with for that to be the case, which I don't.

It's an interesting model. One of many throughout history. A lot can be learned from it so I see it as having value, despite its flaws. A lot of naysayers look at its flaws and since it does not equate to perfection simply reject it outright even as a stepping stone of learning. A lot of the adherents are blindly invested in its merits.

 

[Asa]

@Wyote – yeah.
I don't usually full-out disagree with others because most issues worth discussing are multi-faceted. There are exceptions to this rule, but we don't need to go there.
I agree that people should change how they approach MBTI. Can one of the changes be to stop writing those insipid articles that are the MBTI equivalent to the, "Geniuses Do (whatever meaningless habit a lot of people do)" articles?
I don't think it has to become something new when it changes, though. We could simply emphasize different points.
I think if it were a perfect model, it would not die out, nor would it have so many issues. Being imperfect does not make it meaningless.
A sense of individualism is part of Western Culture. I see both the good and bad in this. :/


Finding out one's type, a type that truly resonates with oneself, is rewarding. Understanding typing in general helps us accept and understand other's behaviors, strengths, and weaknesses, as well.
This is at the root of my frustration. It is not ultimately helpful to be blatantly mistyped.
People who choose types based on the fluff are giving away more about what their egos value than people who attempt to type accurately. (For example, person who chooses "the mastermind", or "the rare one", or the "virtuoso", or "the artist", etc.)
Does typing solve everything, or perfectly explain people as individuals? No.

I know an INTJ who tested as INTJ when she first took the tests, but then insisted she could not be an INTJ based on the fluff descriptions. She didn't find much worth in MBTI because she couldn't find her type and the types she considered (INFJ because of Ni, INFP because she knew her empathy was Fi based) didn't describe her well, either. A year and a half later, she took the official test, got INTJ, and the official description deeply resonated with her. This anecdote adds to the point Ren raised that much of the misinformation is actually outside the official MBTI boundaries. So, it may not be MBTI that is the problem, but the other popular "MBTI-like" stuff online that is the problem. However, at what point do we say, "This is MBTI now?" Sometimes the infiltrators take over the meaning of movements and ideas.

Maybe we should make up a new system that maps people's brains as complexly as star charts in astrology. LOL. I am joking.