I wonder if it would be good straight up put "CT does not correspond to MBTI" on the top of your videos. People just watch them and think "Richard Feynman isn't an ENTJ this is all wrong"
That is a tempting option. ^^
Truly it's odd because I'm not really saying Feynman is "ENTJ". The curious thing is I say he's TeNi and instead of truly understanding what it means to have Te and have Ni, they convert that name back into MBTI-code. Then say "nope, that's not what I've been taught by celebritytypes.com/mypersonality.info!", and the like...
Peppergirl said it best though. It is actually a curious case atm, where the typology community has created a hybrid of two unrelated theories. Fundamentally speaking, Jungian psychic theory is a separate thing than the MBTI behavior-based theory.
The issue is that if I say, "I don't mean ENTJ, I mean Te+Ni" They'll tell me, "Well, ya. So do I. Same thing."
Yeah, I think the biggest problem here is that most people have a misunderstanding of the functions. It would be hard to spread the theory around because of this. I have noticed that Te/Fi are more common judgement functions. If someone finds this theory, then gets typed as something that they think they aren't, they might not take the time to learn the functions and realize that it (potentially) is their type. I think that an Fi user would be more likely to do this and just say something like "LOL IM NOT A ESTJ, FAIL THEORY" because of their emotional attatchment to whatever type they think that they are. The same thing could happen with high Si users, and I have seen more Si/Ne users as well. All of this adds up to a lot of difficulty in trying to get people to understand the theory. Other things are of course there too, like someone arguing that they don't need this theory because MBTI already works or whatever.
Any ideas of how to spread the knowledge and have it well-received? Oh, also understanding that instead of VR being a "decent way of indicating type that isn't applicable to everyone of a certain type", and is instead actually indicative (also goes back to misunderstanding or lack thereof the functions).
I wonder how many of them knew how to play instruments. I know Einstein and Feynman were frequent practitioners. It be interesting to see if there is a correlation between meticulous melodies and [Fi] or physicist. Though in likelihood it's probably very small if it exists.
Haha, this explains why my TiNe sister is into Ms. Manners (where Ti and Fe loves to figure out how social dynamics works) and I (an FiNe) is the social dunce. This also explains why I think my sister does not understand science. I am always telling her "look at the evidence" but she insists on deducting from pre-existing models rather than look at the evidence. Use of models to deduct from is good for social dynamic understanding though.
Post by emotionallogic on Aug 18, 2013 4:53:37 GMT -5
Very exciting result, all the physicists!
I haven't grokked the CT system yet - I'm one of those people who came over from MBTI (by way of looking at cognitive functions in MBTI types). I typed as INTP when younger and then gradually migrated to INFP. But a bothersome thing about INFP is that they are often said to be weak on logic and science, which I most definitely am not.
I haven't been CT typed yet, so my experience might be irrelevant re FiNe (i.e. I might not be FiNe although I am supposedly INFP). But I thought I'd share my thoughts as a person who's making her way across the bridge...