Full Disclosure: I don’t subscribe to pop psychology, pseudo-psychology, or psychology. But I repeat myself. Of course, that’s just what an INTP …
MBTI Defined
——
What do you know about yourself?
I’d guess there are things you think you don’t know about yourself that instruments, such as the Mayers-Briggs can help you realize.
The Myers-Briggs instrument is a way to (supposedly) categorize people.
It can be useful but mostly often people identify with their results as though they are those qualities and tendencies.
I say: yes and.
Yes as much as you’re just gonna believe it anyways.
And in so much that we have to then ask, why did you take the test ?
If you are that type, how could you know that you are that type? Wouldn’t it be self evident even before you saw the results ?
If we can’t be funny with ourselves then What’s the point ? 😄
Nonetheless !!
Let’s think for a moment about what matters!
What is Mattering?
There is a difference that arises at the center of every thought of difference, which transcribed, amounts to the meaning that The lived experience of one’s self is not necessarily what one thinks.
This can be easily encountered if you simply ask a person what they think about anything. Sometimes I’ll just start talking and they’ll tell you their opinion. But more often, they’ll start talking, and there will be starts and stops, there will be times when they say “Umm” similar type pauses.
If I am what I am thinking, then why would I ever pause? More likely it’s that I’m trying to find words that suit you — not me. I just think that I’m expressing to you ideas about myself.
If I am able to pause, then there is something different between what I think and what I say.
If I think they are linked, I have failed to notice something significant about what is happening.
There is a difference in there that is not being recognized for the sake of only recognizing the other person, which is to say, one’s phenomenology.
Phenomenology is a philosophical topic that has been being discussed for the past, I don’t know, 200 years maybe. It is a philosophical topic; at no time does it reach to the person themselves. Only under certain conditions does it say anything about a person, which is to say, only under ‘mistaken’ conditions.
This mistake is capitalized upon by the science of psychology and its kin. Yet This mistake was noted by the often discredited and vastly misunderstood psychiatrist Jacques Lacan.
He basically said that psychiatry is a practice based on a mistake. And this is doubly capitalized and emphasized when a person has a psychiatric issue. Not only is their problem a sort of misunderstanding of what is happening, but that then entering into treatment with a psychologist or a psychiatrist emphasizes that this mistake is not a mistake. From the social standpoint, Think ‘social media’ to get an idea of the large problem and how we are evidently going about solving it currently.
According to Lacan, the role of psychological treatment is to help the patient to realize that they are not (in the act of therapy) involved with a therapist, indeed, that their thinking the involvement is part of the problem. In effect what is so problematic about what Lacan is saying, and the reason why he is so vastly discredited and misunderstood, is because he goes to the heart of the whole modern psychiatric/psychological problems and solves it.
No one wants that.
Very few people actually want to get better. Most people just want their problem recognized by others to then be accommodated as they then have permission to accommodate their sense of problem to themselves.
This is not an accusation. It is a realization.
To solve this problem threatens not only well paying careers but the very ideal that holds society together, and most significantly, the person who has the problem.
This topic is much too broad for a blog space where everyone is passing the time reading interesting blogs. Again, no one is really wanting to find a solution themselves; they are only wanting to act out what they already know and place their problem in the social milieu. And this is the issue. The problem with many problems is a social solution; psychology is not exempted from this epistemological fact. Nonetheless, This is not a problem to be solved, as it accounts for a difference that is not being recognized as the basis of problem, in the accounting of problem in definitional space (like a language).
So it is, One should keep in mind that this is not a blog post that’s arguing against psychology or psychiatry. It is actually a description of the state of things. Not an argument about what is wrong with them.
PERSONALITY TYPES, part 1.
The notion and effort around Personality Types are based in the notion that there is a link between who and what I am and what I do in the social world. This assumption is so basic to what it is to being an existing human being, that even to make that comment many people will think it doesn’t make sense. They’ll immediately think, “of course there’s a linkage between who I am and the social world” and “personality types are about the person, by definition, not society”.
However, to get anywhere constructive, the first statement needs to be made — that is, that there is no link — because then it helps us to understand what is actually happening in so much that I am involved with the social world. If we do not ask these types of questions that make no sense at the beginning, we inevitably have to fall deeper into mistake anywhere we might want to go.
I mean, just look at the current state of the world !
If we are only asking questions that makes sense to us, then we are in a very simple way repeating what we already know.
The idea of personality types is an exercise based on, not this problem, but the fact of the issue. They are based on the idea of Carl Jung’s enneagrams. The difference is that Jung understood the disjuncture where as the subsequent personality types instrument such as the Mayers Briggs, are about capitalization and don’t really care if there’s a disjunction occurring anywhere, because, yes, they’re really trying to perpetuate and grow social capital.
Again, that’s too big of a topic to talk about here. I just want to get some examples of how the Mayers Briggs really misses the significance of what its showing, and for those that are finding the Mayers Briggs interesting, how they might be missing something significant about the whole process.
So, it appears there is going to be a part two.
Stay tuned happy campers!
