Then, what you basically mean is that there is no applicational value in knowing someones CT?
What I mean with the above is simply this: Even if we know their cognitive functions, this does not yield any information about their personalities. And we end up in situation that is as good as not knowing this person at all. Then what is the benefit of knowing someones CT in the first place?
How does knowing someones CT benefit to us? Can we expect them to end up with same results when we put them in same condition? Or is there a some kind of script running that we can use to predict what they gonna do next?
Like MV, I'm very much interested in what the purpose of CT is if not to explain and understand a person's deep psychology; and specifically, their motivations. We can say an NiFe and SeTi appear different superficially, but how is this beneficial categorically speaking if our final assessment is that everybody can have the same motivations or behaviors or not at all?
I'm directing this question to you @morsecode. I find your thought process facinating, but also very different from mine.
I am definitely not the best person to talk about the purpose of a theory that was not my discovery and that is still so new me. Especially when its developers are fortunately alive and here to hopefully answer your questions with more precision and clarity. As far as I understood, CT was based on (and is an extension of) Carl Jung's discoveries on types. The name of Jung's book (in which he presents his typology) is 'PSYCHOLOGICAL types', not 'PERSONALITY types'. It is PART of all his attempts to explain the psyque. So many more concepts were developed by him: animus, anima, complex, shadow, persona, transcendental function, Self, etc.). He knew that there's more to explain people than just a concept or two or three or four. It doesn't devalue the geniusis of each of his discoveries (psychological types included). MBTI provides people with a framework that brings people a sense of 'safety' in relating with those around them. But then there's a price to pay: misconceptions, stereotypes, wrong assumptions, etc. In my life, I prefer to walk in the dark holding the candle of truth in my hands and taste the unknown - each person I meet included - with the same pleasure and excitement that I taste what I have already seen, rather than to preconceively 'see' things thanks to artifical lights that distort reality for the sake of a pseudo-safety. We are not one-dimensional people and each person uses his/her functions in a way depending on the development of their psyque. There are so many theories that map reality. I prefer to use the right map at right time rather than to attribute super powers to each of them and then sacrifice a sober view of the territory. At the moment, I am quite excited about this CT map that explains something that exists and it is not 'personality', but is related to psychological functions that guide consciousness.
Last Edit: May 18, 2013 12:31:04 GMT -5 by Deleted
The reality is, even if your blood type ends up playing no practical role in your life, you still have one. The same would apply to cognitive type. It's not dependent on practical use, but that said, this isn't how it'd happen with CognitiveType. Something of this magnitude - to truly realize that just like blood type and gender, people have mental types - would have massive implications in neuroscience, psychology, medicine, education, relationships, counseling/stress. I find that knowledge of cognitive theory is imperative to humanity. For many more ways than what MBTI was purposing.
MBTI makes types useful as a 'self-validation'/pat-on-the-back system, a career suggester, and poor relationship adviser at best. That's it.
CognitiveType can potentially be used to treat mental distortions/grips, treat psychiatric patients, see what's unnatural about a person's psychology using EEG/fMRI (using healthy versions of their type as a base comparison point), formulate different learning curriculum at school in consideration of different learning styles, rewrite large portions of the DSM and not diagnose Ne-doms with ADHD so much (if at all, etc), discover the actual equations of consciousness and how the mind emerges from the brain -- imitate that equation artificially (A.I.).
There are ways this could be standardized, for example, motion tracking software could read a person's cognitive type without needing an EEG. But at an early age a child can be given an EEG/fMRI to discover their cognitive type (not unlike a test to discover blood type) and entire manuals and books could exist about the child's type for the parent to understand how to raise them. The parent's type can also be identified and the probable conflicts that may arise, and how to address them, can be communicated. This can be communicated as fact. Not just as a miscellaneous model.
In a way it can even help set a more 'scientific' standard for child-raising. I think the human race as a whole would tremendously mature if this was understood wide-scale. Less prejudice would exist against introverted or withdrawn personalities, more traits that are presently shunned would be valued. The practical implications are thousands, they're just not the silly ones MBTI talks about. I find it so much more exciting to think about this.
But I know what you're getting at is the immediately useful day-to-day interaction, and that applies too. It just hasn't yet been written but volumes would eventually be written if this is first established scientifically. This is why I've been focusing less on making profiles (which is the convenience mbti adopted) and instead tried to relay the fundamental phenomenon.
People who share these brain activity profiles (from EEG/etc) could be questioned as to their lifestyle, how they see their own way of thinking, and create autobiographies of how they view their own mental experience. These accounts would be taken only as information of particular cases but together, the data extracted from all the accounts of all the samples could be consolidated via similarities into psychological profiles that truly reflect that psychology.
But I know what you're getting at is the immediately useful day-to-day interaction, and that applies too. It just hasn't yet been written but volumes would eventually be written if this is first established scientifically. This is why I've been focusing less on making profiles (which is the convenience mbti adopted) and instead tried to relay the fundamental phenomenon.
People who share these brain activity profiles (from EEG/etc) could be questioned as to their lifestyle, how they see their own way of thinking, and create autobiographies of how they view their own mental experience. These accounts would be taken only as information of particular cases but together, the data extracted from all the accounts of all the samples could be consolidated via similarities into psychological profiles that truly reflect that psychology.
For me at least, immediately useful day-to day interaction is of little concern. Though, fundamentally representing and conveying someone's psychology is; and yes, I get that in a "realistic" sense fundamentally understanding someone's psychology is not the same as getting to know that person as an individual-and that CT is not all encompassing. My issue is validity, I suppose. As in, if someone says they think ZX way, and perceive ZX way, and for the most part other their behaviors are in line with ZX--and yet, their body language conveys to us T, then what grounds do we have to stand on our conclusion? Is our conclusion based upon body language alone, ignoring the rest of what we know of a person altogether? Does CT aim to explain the whole person, and if so, how do we explain away overarching aspects of the psyche bleeding out into the world when CT does not add up? How do we know when we're wrong at this point(or really, when do we concede the point), when our validating ourselves? Where are the checks and balances? And um, sorry for the avalanche of questions.
Yes, those are important questions, deserving of their own thread, really. (would you mind if I made it into a thread?)
The fundamental question you're asking is: How do we quantify consciousness?
If a person describes their consciousness as being a certain way, who else could say otherwise, and on what basis? One thing that immediately comes to mind is a neurological approach. People's opinion of themselves are independent of what their brain activity looks like. Now suppose that (going off Dario Nardi's preliminary work) we can refine that to find a strong correlation between visually read types and their neurological activity, and create 'brain profiles' per se.
The brain activity isn't arbitrary. The sections that light up, and moreover the sequence in which they light up, is indicative of certain sorts of brain function. Regions have functions and one can tell if a person is using their occipital region to visualize something, or using their executive region to take action or make a decision. If, say, an "ENTJ" wanted to say that they're really an "ENTP", this can be tested.
An EEG can be run and it can be determined whether or not they are primarily using executive regions (Te) (frontal region) and utilizing Ni holistic/blue-brain patterns, or if they're primarily demonstrating the cross-contextualizing pattern of Ne "christmas tree" (as Nardi calls it). Though not only those patterns, but all the other indicators which I strongly hypothesize would be revealed once more controlled studies than Nardi's are created.
So if this person's revealed to have the same brain activity pattern as dozens of other confirmed TeNi, with an explanation of how it really is that his brain's working and why those regions are lighting up, and he still choose to believe that he was "ENTP" then that'd be ignorance, but that's fine. He can decide to call himself that if he so desires but it wouldn't change the reality of his psyche. We don't really have say over what cognitive type we are and it wouldn't change the parallel he'd have to those other people.
1. What does a CT designation tell me about a person if not their motivations or at the least, an explanation of their explicit behaviors?
Thereβs this quote floating around: It's not your beliefs that make you a better person, it's your behaviors.
I find this relevant because I think the quote is nonsensical(just to give you some insight into my own thought process). In my mind, one's beliefs are inextricably linked to the resulting behaviors. Likewise, I'm not sure how to separate cognition and behavior...the process from the result. Certainly, people adopt personas, but the adopted personas derive from the process. I'm likely just being overly complicated. :\
Last Edit: May 18, 2013 19:42:56 GMT -5 by starlit7
Knowing the mechanism of one's thought doesn't necessarily tell you what their motivations are. As you said, specific beliefs and other adopted information quite often are the deciding factors in specific actions. As Erifrail has commented before, someone being orderly doesn't automatically make them a Te user, but Te users do tend to think about creating order in systems outside of themselves. Anybody can be orderly (or messy) if that's something they've resolved to do though.
In CT, involuntary body language is used to trace brain activity patterns. We are gauging thought processes, the 8 functions. Outside of the involuntary behaviors outlined by CT, and those that will likely be discovered down the line, other things are habits that aren't specific to type. So there are two types of behavior, but only one that we're paying attention to for the purposes of VR.
There quite likely are certain personas and habits that each type is more likely to adopt. However, this isn't something that can be used to gauge someone's type because it isn't 100% consistent. This is one of the problems with existing tests, they do rely heavily on the association of a type with certain adopted behaviors.
Last Edit: May 18, 2013 23:24:36 GMT -5 by Alerith
1. What does a CT designation tell me about a person if not their motivations or at the least, an explanation of their explicit behaviors?
Motivations is a loose word, but if I understand you correctly, then I'd agree. I'd personally use the word impulses. A function pair automatically activates and has a certain rhythm/agenda which causes a cascade of other effects. In some form or another, one's motivation can be traced back to their mental processes. And their actions/behaviors can be traced back to their motivations, whether they appear the same to other types' behaviors or not. So if two types behave the same way, they're still doing it for different motives, stemming from different mental impulses.
It's like saying "what are the visible symptoms of ___ disease?". There will be a direct cause->effect relationship where the underlying problem is causing the symptoms but other diseases can cause some of the same symptoms too, via different avenues. So long as this is understood, then it's okay to also include the effects of having that disease within the information of the disease -- and likewise it's important to note the tangible behavior that is often caused by having a cognitive process as long as the behavior itself isn't taken as the definition of the process.
The practical application of cognitive type is to have a better way of understanding people. Since I started studying mbti/socionics/JCFs/CT/etc. I've become a lot more tolerant and understanding of other people in a genuine and more informed way.
I think some of the really apparent differences between people of different types is their definition of evidence and their rationalizations. Consider doctorjuice1, youtube personality, a lot of people like his videos, I'm even subscribed to him, but I don't find his videos helpful in the slightest. He'll explain a type as being "future oriented" or whatever, and it's like the phrases he uses have this super in-depth meaning that only he knows. EJarendee talked about this Fi behavior of attaching emotions and meanings to words to make them super emotionally charged. I don't do that, so when people communicate to me in this way I only get a fraction of their message. In the past I would immediately just assume that he's an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about, but now I give him a lot of credit because I know based off his posts on perC that he's done a lot of research and knows stuff. It's just that we have a communication barrier.
The above was just one example but the list goes on, it's just one example. So given the ability to recognize these different cognitive types you can tailor your communication style. I know people at work that judge how much someone knows on a subject by how many details they know and the depth of those details. So lets say your arguing for a material change to some machine, and in your argument you mention the density of 5/8 gauge stainless steel to 4 digits after the decimal than that is more impressive than knowing it to 1 decimal and it implies your better informed than anyone else. If it's part of something I'm working on and see all the time then I may remember that measurement, but I'm not proud of accumulating that level of information. However, I will make sure I know that stuff because it increase my credibility, and my contributions to discussions will be considered better. There's other people, a lot, who would consider all of that worthless and only consider new ideas and future vision valuable and worth saying. They couldn't care less about the specifics of accomplishing a task and probably look down on detailed oriented work.
and not diagnose Ne-doms with ADHD so much (if at all, etc),
I chuckled, irl
On a sidenote: Erifrail you reminded me of something. I often find that INTPs can be very devoted, almost religiously, to a particular 'cause'. This reminder has given me another supporting ticket in your assessment that I'm an NeTi rather than a TiNe, as I do not have that zeal for any particular cause, or any cause in the first place.
Just a random note.
P.S. I do find the stereotypical aloofness of an INTP's demeanor amusingly contradictory to their diligence in these goals or beliefs.
Last Edit: May 25, 2013 16:20:34 GMT -5 by swiveling
Then, what you basically mean is that there is no applicational value in knowing someones CT?
What I mean with the above is simply this: Even if we know their cognitive functions, this does not yield any information about their personalities. And we end up in situation that is as good as not knowing this person at all. Then what is the benefit of knowing someones CT in the first place?
My question was an extension of the bolded, a reiteration, really, because I hold the same view. Of course there is a practical application of an objective system which can determine the nature of the individual's psyche, but in it's current form, CT is a subjective system. It's based upon subjective impressions of behavioral expression--which is the reason why one person sees one thing, and another sees something else entirely.
I'll use @morsecode just as an example because FiSe is not the "fit" that she initially saw for herself--and I'm still not sure whether it is or isn't. Others have also questioned their typing, a natural occurence in subjective systems in which the typed is required to see themselves through the typer. And so let's say that I personally know @morsecode and am also well-versed in CT. @morsecode does not "fit" FiSe to me either. Everything about what I know of her says NiFe. How does this discrepancy get resolved---or does it have to wait for neurotyping via imaging? Is CT only about micro-body language---irrespective even, of a majority opinion which is not inline with what we can see via CT? Which leads to the question---how is CT useful when people do not see themselves(and others do not see the subject) in the "type"? Typological systems and psychological diagnosis work along the same lines, but the difference is, a subjective diagnosis of say--ADHD--is only valid and relevant if the subject or those in the subject's environs experience notable symptoms. If an ADHD child doesn't himself experience ADHD and neither do those who know him best, what is the point of the doctor's assessment of such a diagnosis?
Last Edit: May 25, 2013 19:00:45 GMT -5 by starlit7
starlit7 - in that scenario, other people may know morescode and say that she does fit the FiSe psychology. So how would you resolve that? Would you take a "majority rules" approach and say that a person's type is whatever the majority sees them as? Is type nothing more than collective opinion based on manifested traits?
And how are you defining the psychology of "FiSe"? Would there be an official description somewhere? Would that definition be interpreted the same way by everyone? Everyone who thinks morescode's really not FiSe?
Even if we know their cognitive functions, this does not yield any information about their personalities. And we end up in situation that is as good as not knowing this person at all.
This is wrong...
The cognitive functions determine so much about personality and make up the bulk of it. When we say a person has warm articulation that is not a sterile movement unrelated to their psyche, but because of the psyche. When we say a person has Ne eye-toggling, that *is* *because* of the way their mind is working --- the thoughts they're producing --- and there will be visible behavioral results from that process. They're not as simplistic as "they'll have messy rooms" --- or "they'll have poor attention spans" but they will exist. All their behaviors as a whole will make sense in the context of their mental dynamic, even the visual ones. And even though two Ne-leads may share few "specific" behaviors and if given a profile description that relies on tangible examples they may not relate to them at all.
If the type of psychoanalysis a person is interested in making is one-dimensional, then CT theory would be useless to them... It won't tell you any definite behavior that you can depend on to know a person's psyche. People aren't that simplistic and any model you build that does make things that easy, won't be reflecting true human psychology but just a "useful" delusion and stereotype.
CT is a psychological model that has tangible, behavioral effects that only make sense if you know the psychology of it first. But I can't make others *see* the root causes. In part it takes looking for them. I guess all I can do is describe them, as jung did, but I'll do so in more detail and more empirically than he did, and those who are interested in the puzzle of the human psyche -- and are aware than in seeking to understand it they will encounter all sort of twists, turns and paradoxes which it is their desire to resolve in order to make sense of it, will definitely see it.