Post by kpkq on Jul 7, 2013 8:23:51 GMT -5
I just wanted to get this out before the community does expand and everyone has their own agenda and people go all over the place.
1. Firstly, I think it's important to keep in mind that theories are models and maps of reality. They do not actually correspond to reality.
I think Erifrail and Alerith were conscious of this when they started their theories; they wanted to do the brain scan test to verify the theory, and this is one of the things that attracted me to CT.
How "good" a theory is depends on its predictive power, whether the map actually helps us navigate the territory. That's why it's very important to support theories with experimental and empirical data, even if rudimentary, to see if the map corresponds with the territory. And especially in mushier fields such as psychology, these kinds of things can be rather difficult. (almost impossible)
We should be wary of making very definite statements based on theories and especially theories that aren't well-proven yet with evidence. Be careful when trying to forcibly fit the world into the map, "My Mother is SiFe, so this is why she did this.", "My brother is TiSe, and we all know what they do." "I use my Ne when I'm dreaming and my Se when I'm having sex, omg." We can't improve the map if we are looking through biased lenses, and we can't make the map chart places that are just beyond its scope.
I'm not saying we should stop making theories or models, I'm just saying we have to be aware at all times that they are all just theories and models, and what their limitations are. There are bad maps, good maps, good enough maps, and 99% correct maps, but they are all just maps.
2. Try not to fall in love with the map.
I know what it is like to fall in love with an idea, an ideal, a theory, a model, an ideology. It feels good and gives you warm fuzzies, but it can be dangerous. It's nice to have strong feelings about things, because it helps move things forward, but we should always remember that ultimately, we are loving a map of the world. A theory can be elegant or beautiful, but if it doesn't help you navigate reality, it's simply entertainment.
So please people, don't fight over a map. Wars have been waged, and much online butthurt has come about because people seem to put their hearts into something that's very speculative ("No!!! That's not Ne, you're obviously using Fi." "No, I know what Ne is, I know!") with no proper basis in the real world.
3. You are not your type!
Again, as an extension of #1, be careful when thinking that any model actually represents reality. Humans and humanity are very complex, and cannot be represented neatly in nice wrapped up boxes and especially in almost-impossible-to-test-in-a-vacuum theories.
Although no psychological theory can be truly, rigorously tested, what typology, Myers-Briggs, Socionics and CT try to provide is a sketch, a model of how the human mind could work. By no means do they try to say that this is in fact how it works. If we remember this we can avoid discussions like "I'm INFP, and I shouldn't be an economist." "You typed me as ESTJ, what's wrong with you? I'm obviously ENTJ! I feel so insulted!" We shouldn't be limited by typology, we shouldn't be limited by sketches, (and we definitely shouldn't be basing huge life decisions on our type alone). They're there to help us see more perspectives, and to shine a bit of light on the human psyche, but by no means do they correspond to what's actually there.
www.guardian.co.uk/science/brain-flapping/2013/mar/19/myers-briggs-test-unscientific
lindaberens.com/integral-type/ (The maps are not the territory)
-----
tl;dr: For any theory or worldview of the world, hold it lightly in your heart. And especially if it has little empirical evidence in the real world, chill out and don't take it too seriously!
1. Firstly, I think it's important to keep in mind that theories are models and maps of reality. They do not actually correspond to reality.
I think Erifrail and Alerith were conscious of this when they started their theories; they wanted to do the brain scan test to verify the theory, and this is one of the things that attracted me to CT.
How "good" a theory is depends on its predictive power, whether the map actually helps us navigate the territory. That's why it's very important to support theories with experimental and empirical data, even if rudimentary, to see if the map corresponds with the territory. And especially in mushier fields such as psychology, these kinds of things can be rather difficult. (almost impossible)
We should be wary of making very definite statements based on theories and especially theories that aren't well-proven yet with evidence. Be careful when trying to forcibly fit the world into the map, "My Mother is SiFe, so this is why she did this.", "My brother is TiSe, and we all know what they do." "I use my Ne when I'm dreaming and my Se when I'm having sex, omg." We can't improve the map if we are looking through biased lenses, and we can't make the map chart places that are just beyond its scope.
I'm not saying we should stop making theories or models, I'm just saying we have to be aware at all times that they are all just theories and models, and what their limitations are. There are bad maps, good maps, good enough maps, and 99% correct maps, but they are all just maps.
2. Try not to fall in love with the map.
I know what it is like to fall in love with an idea, an ideal, a theory, a model, an ideology. It feels good and gives you warm fuzzies, but it can be dangerous. It's nice to have strong feelings about things, because it helps move things forward, but we should always remember that ultimately, we are loving a map of the world. A theory can be elegant or beautiful, but if it doesn't help you navigate reality, it's simply entertainment.
So please people, don't fight over a map. Wars have been waged, and much online butthurt has come about because people seem to put their hearts into something that's very speculative ("No!!! That's not Ne, you're obviously using Fi." "No, I know what Ne is, I know!") with no proper basis in the real world.
3. You are not your type!
Again, as an extension of #1, be careful when thinking that any model actually represents reality. Humans and humanity are very complex, and cannot be represented neatly in nice wrapped up boxes and especially in almost-impossible-to-test-in-a-vacuum theories.
Although no psychological theory can be truly, rigorously tested, what typology, Myers-Briggs, Socionics and CT try to provide is a sketch, a model of how the human mind could work. By no means do they try to say that this is in fact how it works. If we remember this we can avoid discussions like "I'm INFP, and I shouldn't be an economist." "You typed me as ESTJ, what's wrong with you? I'm obviously ENTJ! I feel so insulted!" We shouldn't be limited by typology, we shouldn't be limited by sketches, (and we definitely shouldn't be basing huge life decisions on our type alone). They're there to help us see more perspectives, and to shine a bit of light on the human psyche, but by no means do they correspond to what's actually there.
www.guardian.co.uk/science/brain-flapping/2013/mar/19/myers-briggs-test-unscientific
lindaberens.com/integral-type/ (The maps are not the territory)
-----
tl;dr: For any theory or worldview of the world, hold it lightly in your heart. And especially if it has little empirical evidence in the real world, chill out and don't take it too seriously!
