The Typology Community and the Dodo Bird Verdict

[@ErikThor]

I like to think of truth as a platform game (getting to a point, mastering that level, then moving on to the next) and I also often say truth is functional (how optimally does it work in reality?) when I contrast models and ideas, in that way, they are all good, but ofcourse, our current level of perception or where we are in our introspective process, might influence what content we seek to master at this point. In that way, all models are good, whatever works for the individual. Nice video. 😊

[@placidturmoil1197]

Well said like true Te user. Purest of pure form functional truth "Te child" doing the talk. Don't know why it's so hard getting recognised as one.

[@hamburgers5869]

I pretty much agree. The more “true” something is, the more difficult it can be to understand because you have to add a lot of nuance that makes it like a puzzle to even get the concepts before you can start using it for introspection. I do highly value figuring out what the functions actually “are” but that’s just me.

[@2trntbls469]

I really liked this video by the way. I meant to say that on my last comment but... Did that thing I do sometimes. Thank you for the content you provide, the way you present things is easier for me to follow than many others I've dabbled in

[@2trntbls469]

Similar line of thinking. I believe you can get to know yourself better through almost anything it's just which one or more than one grab your attention or perhaps offer community or maybe you're a dabbler (that's one way of putting it) I'm a dabbler. Spirituality, typology, psychology, astrology, music, film, books, nature, whatever gets you there & however you need to come to terms with it, go for it.

[@stacyg9207]

There is a well- established idea in the modelling and simulation community that all models are wrong but some models are useful. It was statistician George Box that said it and what he meant was that models are simply representations of important aspects of a portion of the tremendous complexity of the world around us. What specific aspects of reality are important is determined by the purpose of the model. A good model is one that is useful for some purpose - it actually works as a guide to answering some question about the real world. Simple, low cost, easily applied models are good when they lead to better results in the real world than would have been attained without use of the model. The danger is oversimplification, where the model fails to account for factors or relationships that do affect the outcome achieved in the real world. And so, I agree that each typology model has its own value in terms of utility for certain purposes. As long as we do not try to draw conclusions beyond the range of the boundaries, abstractions and simplifications of the model used, we are fine. Of course, we need researchers and scientists to be constantly pushing the limits of the models, refining and improving them in terms of the range of purposes for which they can be useful. In the meantime, just remember that all models are wrong but some models are useful! Recognize the inherent limitations of the representations constituting the model you have chosen and apply the model only for appropriate purposes. 🥹

[@Sam_ytube]

I agree. Tools for introspection that hopefully can have a positive real practical impact. I think “truth” is less important than the use. Heck i would do astrology if it helped me. All winners :)

[@alteredcatscyprus]

This is a great take. I’ve been working with the 4 function model for about 5 years, and naturally I have learned more, and stumbled upon more complex models, and some either I am not ready for yet, or will never find helpful, simply because I believe the whole point of a system is to simplify to make useful/helpful. It’s my nature to complicate everything, to the point of becoming my own breathtaking antagonist. If it’s bearing fruit for oneself, it’s all good. Truth to me will always be something else, anyway. I’m not looking for Truth in mbti, I’m looking for an applicable system neither too open to make confusing, nor too closed to feel restrictive.

[@alteredcatscyprus]

At some point, if the system becomes too complex, it’s basically just entered the realm of chaos again. But I don’t think human beings can resist deconstructing systems, or making the holes in them bigger, whether they understand that’s what they are doing or not. I think finding and preserving that sweet spot that’s just right is very important for that reason.

[@TrickyD]

@alteredcatscyprus "I’m not looking for Truth in mbti, I’m looking for an applicable system neither too open to make confusing, nor too closed to feel restrictive." 🤔Maybe these quotes will help? *Obey the principles without being* *bound by them.* - Bruce Lee If you spend too much time thinking about a thing, you'll never get it done. - Bruce Lee A goal is not always meant to be reached, it often serves simply as something to aim at. - Bruce Lee Be selfaware, rather than a repititious robot. - Bruce Lee Simplicity is the shortest distance between 2 points. - Bruce Lee Empty your mind, be formless. Shapeless, like water. - Bruce Lee *A teacher is never a giver of* *truth; he's a guide, a pointer to* *the truth that each student* *must find for himself.* - Bruce Lee

[@alteredcatscyprus]

Bruce makes me wanna be his Grasshoppa. @@TrickyD

[@sirbradfordofhousejones]

My issue with typology is that I can’t get behind any of them once I learn them at a more advanced level. The cracks and assumptions always start to show themselves. This roadblock always stops me from getting use out of them. Ti is my problem, I guess. I want to use it, I just… can’t?

[@cherubin7th]

You just need to talk to someone who you can trust.

[@staryuko7780]

*Cutely looks away* "O-Omg super cool subject" *Blushes slightly*

[@imoffended2444]

????????????????????????????????????????

[@alteredcatscyprus]

@@imoffended2444 Sounds like somebody has a crush 🙂

[@Tified967]

I agree that the efficacy & shared commonalities as to what say MBTI, CPT, socionics has to other etc with regards further introspection is the overarching goal/that which takes precedent. However as a Ti user (and as above illustrated that's not to negate that I use Te far from it have a highly active INTJ subnetwork in CPT) where I differ is that I think there's a lot to be said for the efficacy & accuracy of a particular model. I see an 8 factor one dimensional model that seeks to bridge the gap between behaviour & cognition overly simplistic thus you cannot ascertain your type even from the so called best tests. I'm tested by CPT as a divergent TiNi ENFJ yet on the MBTI step II test I test as an INTJ. Where I think CPT can flourish is that it's a dynamic model that will eventually be empirically verified as its harnessing support from the university of Edinburgh by Harry. I think nuance is everything to a degree and although CPT is highly abstract with the necessary input & groundwork the pieces all do start to fit together. I could never align myself with being an ENFJ in MBTI as my Ti is by far from inferior indeed my axis is rated as 50/50 & as a divergent subtype my TiNi is the most convergent and conscious in attitude. I completely get where you're coming from however I just think MBTI does have too many limitations & can conceive as to why it's been detonated as pseudoscience; oversimplification and binarisation leads to a rather static model that isn't representative of human beings as complex human mechanisms. Indeed CPT posits that through a number of gateways we all access all of the cognitive pairings contingent upon context, preference (that can change) and ease of access given our primary gateways. It now makes sense why MBTI mistyped me as an INTJ albeit from the perspective of network theory this completely makes sense. I'm a proponent of efficacy & accuracy in this respect 😊. I don't really see how MBTI is applicable to reality as it's a unidimensional model that ascribes emergent properties of behaviour to particular cognitive functions when this simply isn't the case; whether we like it or not, we're by far more complex than that. Obviously I'm not bashing you Chris, I think the content & level of introspection & your interesting perspectives are very refreshing in this community that is often predicated on ubiquitous behavioural stereotypes 😊. I think as a more default variant of an INTJ you might find MBTI yourself albeit most people are going to experience a lot of intratype variation: diver, glider, divergent subtypes etc hence why they'll find it difficult to ascertain their type in MBTI. It also doesn't make sense that a codec function such as Te could evaluate anything without a perceiving function of the same orientation etc. MBTI also contends that one is either a Te or Ti user for example which is simply not the case; of course we'll have functions eg TeSe that are stronger in conscious magnitude than others but that can change with cognitive development. CPT also allows for cognitive fluidity which is something MBTI doesn't re actualisation. I think we'll eventually, over time, have a dearth of empirical evidence that will back CPT up. There's a lot that can be discerned from CPT for example, being an extreme divergent subtype like myself may well be indicative of past trauma which can be used as a starting point for therapy. Being more accurately able to discern someone's type utilising CPT as opposed to MBTI has also given me greater awareness over what type of therapist would be best in addressing my needs & conducting an accurate psychological formulation. I agree we're all winners but the disproportionate amounts of people I see mistyped by MBTI are quite astounding which is evident to see in the proliferation of INFJ & INTJ groups for example due to misperceptions as to what constitutes Ni & so forth...to this extent Ti nuance does account for a lot. I want typology to have parity of esteem in the psychology community & to some extent because of MBTI, especially in the UK it is perceived as a pseudoscience that is far removed from Jung's original work. I think it's subjective to a degree; if someone can gain some positive self awareness from MBTI then so be it but if we want a model that is going to take typology out of the realms of pseudoscience then CPT is the way forward.

[@kairostimeYT]

Well, that is certainly a mindset but all that those whiny people want is to make the system more precise. Precision unfortunately could come with non-linearity and higher computational costs. When you were a child, your parents probably might have taught you to look at the sky to see if dark clouds exist to check if it will rain some time later. Instead of this, if you were taught, as a child, how Navier Stokes equation works to compute when it will rain, you'd be tarnishing the simplicity of this situation! However, it is not wise to cast aside those who want to go the extra mile and find solutions to that equation either because we'd then struggle doing time-critical or resource-critical tasks without precision. The moral of this story is to let refinements happen to the system even if you don't want to partake in refining it and to let people be loose and unrefined if they want even if you personally care so much about refining the system.

[@TrickyD]

🤓Truth is. *Always be yourself,* *express yourself,* *have faith in yourself,* *do not go out and* *look for a successful* *personality and* *duplicate it.* - Bruce Lee Knowledge will give you power, but character respect. - Bruce Lee It's not the daily increase but daily decrease. Hack away at the unessential. - Bruce Lee The less confident we are in ourselves, the less we are in touch with ourselves and the world, the more we want to control. - Bruce Lee *Use only that which* *works, and take it from* *any place you can find it.* - Bruce Lee

[@alteredcatscyprus]

I love those. Was he an actual actualized ENFP? I am getting ENFP vibes because I want to talk to whoever said those things forever 😊

[@TrickyD]

@@alteredcatscyprus Was he an actual actualized ENFP?" 🤔My guess is that Bruce Lee is an INTJ like myself, because like me, he tests his philosophies on other living opponents (aka a brawl). In my class of gifted people a classmate asked if there were others who were addicted to thinking like he was? To which I replied: I can imagine that there are two types of being addicted to thoughts: 1) When your thoughts only have to do with your inner world, so they are a kind of escape from reality? (🤐aka addiction) 2) When your thoughts lead you to where where the rubber hits the road; where a theory or idea is subjected to a practical test. The difference between 1 & 2 is that only 2 confronts you with reality and then I tend to name this hyperalert and / or metacognition instead of addicted to thoughts. Metacognition and being hyperalert, although both relate to cognitive processes, are two different concepts: *Metacognition* is the awareness of one's own thought processes and the understanding of the patterns behind it. It can take many forms, such as reflecting on one's ways of thinking and knowing when and how to use certain problem-solving strategies. Metacognition also includes thinking about one's own thought process, such as study skills, memory capacities, and the ability to monitor learning. On the other hand, *being hyperalert* (also called hypervigilance) is a state in which the nervous system inaccurately filters sensory information and the individual is in an elevated state of sensory sensitivity. This can often be caused by traumatic events or PTSD. People who are hyperalert can become obsessed with scanning their environment for possible threats. They may overreact to loud and unexpected sounds, exhibit an overactive startle response, or become agitated in very busy or noisy environments. In summary, metacognition has to do with the awareness and understanding of one's own thought processes, while being hyperalert refers to an elevated state of vigilance and sensory sensitivity. Both can influence how a person processes information and responds to his environment, but they do so in different ways. My preliminary working theory is then that when there is: I) hypervigilance it is very likely that you are HSP. II) metacognition ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” INTJ ” . III) a combination of hypervigilance & metacognition you are Gifted and the chance is also great that you are existentially depressed. You are then not addicted to thinking, but think more often & deeper because you have received so many sensory signals & intellectual insights. 🧠I myself belong to category III, but cannot imagine otherwise than that everyone belongs to this category, because I have been hypervigilant & thought about my own thought process from my earliest memory.

[@alteredcatscyprus]

Food for thought, thanks! @@TrickyD

[@CollyWobbles._3]

Fr

[@leggi_bois4eva]

🧀🧀🧀

[@_winston_2503]

Do you swim? You seem to have goggle marks around your eyes

[@AsuraPsych]

Im just a tired new parent lol

[@hamburgers5869]

I pretty much agree. The more “true” something is, the more difficult it can be to understand because you have to add a lot of nuance that makes it like a puzzle to even get the concepts before you can start using it for introspection. I do highly value figuring out what the functions actually “are” but that’s just me.