Personality typing by brainscan

[jacob]

To avoid further hijacking lightfruit55's journal, I'm starting a new thread here:

https://www.psychologyjunkie.com/use-br ... lity-type/

It turns out that people with different temperaments show different kinds of brain activity when exposed to different stimuli. Some brains light up very asymmetrically. Some synchronize across the entire brain. Some light up specific areas. For example, an Ni dominant person shows high amplitude synchronized beta brainwaves across the entire (left/right) neocortex when encountering a new problem. Subjectively this corresponds to trying to find similarities between patterns in the entire neocortex; keeping similar patterns "resonating" (almost like meditation but at beta frequencies rather than theta). Conversely, a Ne dominant person has their brain light up with similarly high amplitudes but asynchronously (the article describes the effect as a blinking Christmas tree). Subjectively, this is how an ENTP is able to spot surprising connections between widely different things.

This shows that people use their brains rather differently and that one's personality type indicates a particular brain usage and vice versa. It does not show whether it's possible to change the brain's behavior or whether learning a new skill is simply reproduced by proxy of the existing brain. (For example, I could memorize a catalogue of proper Fe responses to specific social situations, but my brain would not light up like an ENFJ with that approach.)

I'll try to get a hold of the book.

[mathiverse]

Here is the beginning of the referenced conversation in lightfruit55's journal for anyone who wants the earlier discussion: viewtopic.php?p=272126#p272126

[Anesau]

The link was very interesting! Its source is the book Neuroscience of Personailty, and the Amazon preview for the book includes multiple pages of its bibliography.

For those that want an easy graphical representation of the areas associated with each personality type, this redditor made an interesting graph.

As a related question, does anyone have recommendations for people newer to MBTI? I've taken the test ~5 times over the years and gotten INTP each time, so my type seems stable, but I'm not well-versed in the advanced type analyses. I'm far more familiar with OCEAN. Checked the ERE recommended reading page on the wiki and did a quick search, but didn't find anything in particular for MBTI. Neuroscience of Personality seems to assume I have a better grasp on MBTI than I do, so not sure it's the ideal starting point.

[jacob]

As a related question, does anyone have recommendations for people newer to MBTI? I've taken the test ~5 times over the years and gotten INTP each time, so my type seems stable, but I'm not well-versed in the advanced type analyses. I'm far more familiar with OCEAN. Checked the ERE recommended reading page on the wiki and did a quick search, but didn't find anything in particular for MBTI. Neuroscience of Personality seems to assume I have a better grasp on MBTI than I do, so not sure it's the ideal starting point.

https://www.amazon.com/Gifts-Differing- ... 89106074X/
https://www.amazon.com/Please-Understan ... 004HQNJV0/
https://www.amazon.com/Please-Understan ... 885705026/

[Stahlmann]

didn't read (will later), have opinion anyway, will derail topic: I'm not sure if it's possible, because I was once interested on brain scans in terms of psychical conditions and there's no such solution (at least at the level of "consumer" psychiatry, nobody will do PETs to see red regions (or whatever color pallet gradients they use) in brain to determine mania or depression state). Maybe so called famous American scientists are working on this .

[lightfruit55]

Not sure if this is of tangent or this sharing is of novice level. I've been listening to the Personality Hacker podcast and they have discussed the ideas of there being 4 subtypes/flavours of each personality type - Dominant, Creative, Normalizing, Harmonizing. I liked the idea that there is a whole spectrum of variance in each personality type and in terms of evolution/personal development, there is a lot of explore even within each type!

[jacob]

@lightfruit55 - That's interesting. I was aware of a previous further differentiation/axis called Assertive-Turbulent. It's not something I've looked into very much. I prefer parsimony. MBTI already has 16 types. This would make it 32 or 64.

I don't see MBTI typing as proscriptive in any way. To me it's just one of many maps of human behavior but one that is very compatible with the way my brain works(*). Plotkin's subpersonality model is OTOH rather incompatible with how my brain works; something I've been obnoxiously vocal about on the forum. Insofar additional dimensions flesh out additional insight, I think they should be welcomed. Any map or navigation method that helps to know oneself or others better than "everybody is like me" or "everybody is unique" is good.

(*) Note how the INTJ types who makes up ~1-3% of humans seem to occupy a very large space in terms of MBTI fans. Conversely, ES**s, who make up a large fraction of humanity, are almost non-existent in terms of users and often outright deny MBTI maps as BS.

[OutOfTheBlue]

I don't see MBTI typing as proscriptive in any way. To me it's just one of many maps of human behavior but one that is very compatible with the way my brain works(*). Plotkin's subpersonality model is OTOH rather incompatible with how my brain works; something I've been obnoxiously vocal about on the forum. Insofar additional dimensions flesh out additional insight, I think they should be welcomed. Any map or navigation method that helps to know oneself or others better than "everybody is like me" or "everybody is unique" is good..

Just for clarification, Plotkin's subpersonalities are not part of a personality typing model but a nature-based map of the human psyche (which can't really be mapped through brain scan). In Wild Mind, Plotkin hints at a nature-based personality type model he and his colleagues at Animas Valley Institute have sketched out and use, but to my knowledge this work has remains unpublished. See here: viewtopic.php?p=260832&hilit=personality#p260832 also the chapter "Individual differences: a glimpse at personality types" in Wild Mind, and related end of book footnotes.

Furthermore, Plotkin's subpersonalities do not exist in a vacuum.

In his words:

I borrowed the term subpersonalities from the approach to psychology known as psychosynthesis, developed by Italian psychiatrist Roberto Assagioli in the early 1900s. Other traditions and schools of Western psychology have referred to intrapsychic fragments of this sort as complexes (Freudian and Jungian analysis), parts (Gestalt psychology), internal objects (object relations theory), ego states (transactional analysis), or selves (Hal and Sidra Stone’s Voice Dialogue or Psychology of Selves; and Richard Schwartz’s Internal Family Systems Therapy). Each subpersonality functions by way of an interrelated set of ideas, emotions, memories, impulses, and behavioral patterns.

Regarding the names used:

It's challenging to identify names for parts of the psyche, names that might enjoy widespread resonance and acceptance. Although in these pages I’ve selected words that work for me, my colleagues, and most participants in our programs, there will be some readers for whom some of these words won’t resonate. But the names are not essential; the meanings are. I’ve tried to offer clear descriptions and definitions so you can understand what I’m pointing to, even if you might prefer other pointers. The important thing is to have a common language to refer to shared concepts and images. In your own use of the Nature-Based Map of the Psyche, feel free to substitute other names when those work better for you.

[black_son_of_gray]

Not to be too critical of Dario Nardi or his book (don't know him, haven't read it), I would advise reining in expectations.

He is not a neuroscientist and I would be wary of categorizing his work relating to Neuroscience of Personality as "science" for the following reasons:

Unless I've missed something on Google Scholar and PubMed, he hasn't ever published experiments/data in peer-reviewed journals, despite performing EEG research? This means there is no transparency into methodology, data analysis, statistics, etc. I would actually loooooove to read a methods section about his EEG work if anyone can find one. I combed through his Portland talk slides and couldn't find anything remotely technical...and having reviewed papers many times as a scientist, I can assure you there are tons of tiny little details about methodology that make a world of difference. As in, "we're seeing a huge and meaningful effect!" vs. "there is nothing here but statistical noise!" with small differences in methods. (Guess which ones get published!)

In general, I would also urge caution on the (over)interpretation of EEG data. It's a level of insight into the workings of the brain akin to "understanding how a city works because I was looking down on it from the airplane as we flew over". It's not nothing. It is a legitimate research tool. It can tell us some things, and it's wonderful that it isn't invasive(!). But the resolution, both temporally and spatially are major limitations. Which means that you are left with "high level" conclusions, often kinda tautological, something along the lines of "we looked at people whose brains behave differently (i.e. personality as brain phenotype), and when we presented them with a range of stimuli, guess what? They behaved differently!"

On a separate note, the amount of discourse related to MBTI on these forums is ... puzzling to me. It seems very EEGish in the sense that it can be useful and have its place, but waaaaaaay too much is being read into it. Seems most useful in a limited, broad strokes kind of way. I'm off my soapbox, carry on with your acronyms.

[7Wannabe5]

Might be veering a bit off topic, but wanted to respond to comments about validity/usefulness of models, and how the models might be related or combined to be even more useful.

I invented my own Jungian/Plotkin-like model when I was doing group therapy in my late 30s. Four quadrants: adult masculine energy (authority/dominance/mastery), adult feminine energy (responsibility/care-taking), juvenile masculine energy (initiative, independence, curiosity), juvenile feminine energy (sensitivity, aesthetic-concern, vulnerability.) The therapy group was largely concerned with sexual issues in marriage, although we discussed many other matters, roughly akin to this forum. Thus, sexual dichotomy theory contributed to my choice of gender-assignations to the quadrants. What made the model more Plotkin-like was the second step where you choose/imagine a different spirit animal to represent your particular identity/functioning in each quadrant. So, for instance, my personality version of the model is Adult Masculine : Snowy Owl, Adult Feminine: Deer (Domesticated Cow on a bad day), Juvenile Masculine; Monkey, Juvenile Feminine : Snowshoe Bunny

Anyways, I can also roughly map this model on to the MBTI model of my personality which is eNTP. Ne would be the Monkey, Ti would be the Snowy Owl, Fe would be The Deer, and Si would be the Snowshoe Hare. And the 4 quadrants of my personality also directly map on to my description of my ideal lifestyle in alignment with my purpose which would be The Adventure Cottage Library; Ne-Monkey-Adventure, Ti-Snowy Owl-Library, Fe and Si, Deer and Bunny, Cottage.

There are really endless different models that could be constructed based on the simple assumptions/realization that humans possess something we refer to as temperament or personality (1) and human personalities are complex, thus there are a number of different aspects to any unique human's personality (2.) For instance, you could create a fairly workable model just based on a test which would determine "Which characters out of the novels of Charles Dickens are you most like?" I recently binge-watched "Desperate Housewives", and I was considering which of the desperate housewives I most resembled, and my answer was "None of them really, but maybe closest to a morph between Susan Mayer and Edie Britt." Then I looked up the MBTI personality types most frequently assigned to the characters portrayed on the show, and as I surmised none of them were eNTPs (female ENTPs are rarely portrayed), but Susan Mayer was ENFP, and Edie Britt was ESTP.

Let me offer an example of how these kinds of models in combination can be helpful. As I realize, become more aware, that sometimes I engage in impulsive behaviors driven by curiosity (or lack of ability to tolerate boredom) that are not entirely in alignment with self-care, I might visualize this as my Monkey shoving my Bunny in "his" back-pack. Adventure (Ne)-> Anxiety (Si). Simple example of how this tendency actually very clearly and repeatedly exhibited itself in my childhood was that I had a strong desire/visualisation that I was going to climb up a tree with a book and an apple, and then read my book and eat my apple up in the tree. Every time I did this, my fear of heights wouldn't kick in until it was time to climb down from the tree, so I would have to yell for one of my sisters to go get my father to talk me down. As a self-aware adult working with a helpful model, I can focus on multiple aspects of my personality towards multiple solutions to this variety of problem. I can get my Monkey a prescription for Ritalin (lol) rendering the possibility of finding myself up in a tree less likely*, and/or consider the situation from a more logical or desire to exhibit mastery perspective with my Snowy Owl (the likelihood that I will actually fall to the ground and kill myself while climbing down from this tree is actually quite low, and I have too much pride to call for rescue), and/or provide direct sensory care for my Bunny with my Deer in the moment (get in concious touch with my body to calm myself down through behaviors such as slowly brushing my hair and putting it in a neat braid, which is akin to the Deer calmly petting the Bunny.)

*It's very difficult to consider lobotomizing your prime objective. For instance, "I" would instantly jump to "What's even the point of being alive, if I don't engage in some exploratory, risky behavior?" One of the problems I have as a heterosexual cis-female with primary objective being akin to Juvenile Masculine energy is that I not infrequently feel like my romantic partners are trying to strap my Monkey into a car-seat while they take the wheel, because it would be their preference that I was always in dumb, dull Deer-Bunny mode, with maybe a little access to the Snowy Owl if/when they need somebody to do something like construct a spread-sheet.

[jacob]

+1

Two things:

The field of psychology suffers a lot from the Not Invented Here effect. There are dozens of different schools and they all seem to dislike each other because of NIH. Here's what I think. I think that models appeal to their users for rather idiosyncratic reasons. If the structure of the psychological model is compatible with how one view's the world, why then it's a good model. If not, it's not. For example, academics want their models to be peer-reviewed and p-tested. If they're not, then it's not a good model. This is regardless of whether it's possible to show near 1-1 correspondence or onto-relations with other models. It wasn't invented here, so it must be wrong. I like MBTI because I'm a sucker for dichotomous diagrams. Some schools actively dislike this kind of quantitative mindset and want a more qualitative one. Some schools believe an expert can tell anyone who/what they are. Others believe that this is only discovered through conversational relations.

The consilience effect. Psychology is not exactly a hard science. Any given model may be only right 60% of the time when applied to random persons. However, combining several "weak"-models, can make for a very strong model indeed. I dare say, if I know someone's MBTI-type + their Kegan level + their IQ + their vMeme, I usually know more about [this person] for practical purposes than they know about themselves. Basically, each new model increases the confidence level from 60% to 70% to 80% ... until it reaches a point "beyond reasonable doubt". (Especially being an outlier, if I assume that "everybody else is like me" I'll only be right in about 0.015% of the cases (I've done some math), so "going in blind" is just about the worst possible strategy there is in my case. Therefore I need as many different theories of mind as I can get. People who are close to the 50% percentile in 1+ dimensions have a huge advantage over me when it comes to relating to others.

[black_son_of_gray]

Let me offer an example of how these kinds of models in combination can be helpful. As I realize, become more aware, that sometimes I engage in impulsive behaviors driven by curiosity (or lack of ability to tolerate boredom) that are not entirely in alignment with self-care, I might visualize this as my Monkey shoving my Bunny in "his" back-pack.

Is it the model(s) that is so helpful or simply the self-discovery that "As I realize, become more aware, that sometimes I engage in impulsive behaviors driven by curiosity (or lack of ability to tolerate boredom) that are not entirely in alignment with self-care"? Introspection, self-reflection, learning about how you and others tick, etc., could certainly be enhanced by the insights of a model, but I'm not sure how labeling and categorizing and constant analysis provides substantial additional benefit extending past the initial grokking of "oh, I tend to do X and didn't know about it," or "ahhh, I see now that some people value X over Y, and I hadn't ever appreciated that before."

For example, academics want their models to be peer-reviewed and p-tested. If they're not, then it's not a good model. This is regardless of whether it's possible to show near 1-1 correspondence or onto-relations with other models. It wasn't invented here, so it must be wrong. I like MBTI because I'm a sucker for dichotomous diagrams. Some schools actively dislike this kind of quantitative mindset and want a more qualitative one. Some schools believe an expert can tell anyone who/what they are. Others believe that this is only discovered through conversational relations.

This is kinda my point? Author is an academic. Speaks with authority as an academic. Has a "research laboratory". Collects data. Author is presenting work as "neuroscience", which is a data-driven branch of science, not the conceptual wing of psychology. BUT...
Doesn't have peer-reviewed research in field. Doesn't have degree or academic pedigree in field? Doesn't show data analysis. Doesn't demonstrate professional competence in research methods.

I'm not trying to be an academic "gatekeeper" here. The work isn't following the conventions/standards of the field it presents itself as being in, so it shouldn't be treated with the credibility of the field.

An expert in ayurveda or traditional Chinese medicine may legitimately have many useful insights into health and disease, but to publicly present themselves as a medical doctor is sketchy.
An expert in HVAC may know a lot about air and heat transfer and may have even studied weather and climate-related topics extensively, but to publicly present themselves as a climate scientist is sketchy.
Right?

I dare say, if I know someone's MBTI-type + their Kegan level + their IQ + their vMeme, I usually know more about [this person] for practical purposes than they know about themselves.

Yeah, I'm getting major red flags reading this. Hard disagree. I don't even know where to begin...
Life history?
Current life situation?
Personal preferences?
Gender?
Age?
Family environment?

It's as though if you read enough music theory books you'd understand why a jazz musician played a specific 10 minute solo better than the bandmates who've play with them for years but can't even read sheet music.

Also, what do you mean by "practical purposes?"

I mean, what are your social interactions/relationships like? The vast majority of interactions for the vast majority of my social circle/relationships require absolutely no deep, conscious analysis to be enjoyable, functional, or meaningful*. Like 99% or more. Planning a trip with SO? Talking to parents on phone? Chatting up a cashier? Discussing something work-related with a colleague? Attending pot-luck? Almost all of these interactions are largely friction-less and either neutral to enjoyable for me, most of the time. Am I freak, or is that normal?

If that's normal, then why spend so much mental overhead on the 1%? I could maybe understand it if like 50% of your dealings with others sucked. (!) Is that the reality of all the people on this forum who constantly talk in acronyms??? If so, you truly have my sympathies.

*Certainly this hasn't always been the case, and this is partly the result of, over time, learning about myself and my personality (MBTI only kinda useful, but not very) and how that differs from others, etc., but I don't need to have that framework constantly running in the background. Occasionally it's helpful for particularly frustrating interactions/people, but this is pretty uncommon in my experience.

I can't help but think that this consilient model building is a slippery slope to what a number of therapy styles call "cognitive distortions", which tend to be dysfunctional. You know people better than they know themselves? No you don't - you're "mind-reading" and "fortune-telling". You know their vMeme or IQ or whatever...you're "labeling". The more models you use the more certain you are, leading to "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Dichotomous diagrams? Risk of black-and-white thinking and overgeneralization (there's kind of a problem of induction issue here too). I know people who exhibit strong tendencies towards these cognitive distortions, and they are in fact less enjoyable to interact with for that specific reason. They are also very socially awkward and isolated. These aren't thought patterns that I want to become automatic or constant in my own head, and I would think that most people would be better off avoiding these thought patterns as well.

[7Wannabe5]

substantial additional benefit extending past the initial grokking of "oh, I tend to do X and didn't know about it," or "ahhh, I see now that some people value X over Y, and I hadn't ever appreciated that before."

Good question. I would say that the additional benefit is derived due to the ability to extend the metaphor once it has been self-created. When you answer the questions in an MBTI survey or choose the "spirit animals" to assign to each quadrant in the dichotomous model I hacked together, it's not entirely unlike taking a Rorschach test. For instance, is it entirely random that I chose a Rabbit rather than a Cat to represent my Juvenile Feminine energy? Can the metaphor be extended with realization that like a Rabbit, I tend to go "underground" when stressed rather than "hissing with claw out" and I tend towards being "bouncy" rather than "sulky." Similarly, my choice of Snowy Owl to represent Adult Maculine fairly well extends to my tendency to become a cold, logical planner when angered.

I mean, I definitely don't buy 100% everything MBTI or any similar model is selling, but recently I have been overly stressed from having to be the best people person I can be too much of the time. So, one thing I did was consult the obviously pop-sci MBTI based book "Don't Do Things You Suck At", and the Car Model it describes clearly indicates that when and ENTP is spending too much time/energy trying to create social harmony/help people with tertiary Fe, then it's likely that Si will exhibit this stress as "retreating into wonky quiet head-space" and "over-eating, over-drinking, or over-exercising." And that's pretty much right on the money. I don't usually do some other less than functional things that other people tend towards doing when they are stressed out, like overly control my environment, or lose my temper, or seek to blame others, etc. etc. , but when I do, I can also explain rarer behaviors with my model. For instance, I only really lose my temper about once every 5 years under extreme provocation, but I can describe it as being like a blue moon when The Snowy Owl (Adult Masculine) and The Monkey (Juvenile Masculine) are simultaneously dysfunctioning and morphing into The Flying Monkey from the Wizard of Oz, and this also helps me empathize with the fact that men are generally more inclined towards violence when challenged in realms related to respect, authority, dominance, and freedom.

[7Wannabe5]

The vast majority of interactions for the vast majority of my social circle/relationships require absolutely no deep, conscious analysis to be enjoyable, functional, or meaningful*. Like 99% or more. Planning a trip with SO? Talking to parents on phone? Chatting up a cashier? Discussing something work-related with a colleague? Attending pot-luck? Almost all of these interactions are largely friction-less and either neutral to enjoyable for me, most of the time. Am I freak, or is that normal?

I think this is normal, and also in alignment with what I usually experience. However, I would also suggest that anybody who has never experienced some fairly serious problem with social relationships is abnormally lucky. I used to be a terrible book snob, so prior to finding myself stuck in a bad marriage in my 30s, I had read almost no books that would be found shelved in the self-help section of a Barnes and Noble. I think it's akin to how you can successfully engage in athletic activities without knowing much about human anatomy, but once you have the experience of a very bad injury compelling you to learn more about anatomy, it's difficult to not think in those terms to some extent occasionally even when doing something relatively easy and routine such as climbing a staircase. "I am activating my gluteous maximus" is analogous to "I am over-taxing my Fe." which is just short-hand for "I am over-taxing my emotional ability to promote harmony in social interaction."

I would also note that I disagree to some extent with the basic MBTI Car Model, because I think I am quite good at promoting social harmony (better than the majority of humans*), but bad at recognizing my limits in that ability.

*Mainly because I have almost no tendency to be reactive in situations such as "Your dog pooped on my lawn."

[jacob]

@bsog - There's definitely philosophical tension between the softer "everybody is a unique and beautiful person" approaches and the harder "types of people" approaches. However, for their respective users, they don't require any mental overhead. It's just how their brains are wired. What does require mental overhead or overload would be to be forced to use the other approach.

Labeling is not the point when it comes to the "types of people" approach. It goes deeper. Studying, talking to, and otherwise interacting with many DIFFERENT types of people eventually makes it clear that there are certain recurring patterns and structures to how people's thoughts are formed. "Types of people" is fundamentally a map of the territory. Now, the map is not the territory, but the map does show the structure of the territory and that structure is not arbitrary nor is it unique to each and every beautiful individual. Indeed, when one is going somewhere having a map has certain advantages compared to exploring the territory blindly (or presuming that the entire world is just like home).

For example, let's say I have a conversation with someone who went to liberal arts college and learned that labels are a form of oppression with colonial undertones and that they therefore do not believe in MBTI or any other test that reduces real human beings with warm bodies and personal narratives to cold numbers and letters. Okay. I talk with them anyway. After a while, I've seen enough of a pattern from the conversation that I can I tell them that I bet their personality type is ABCD ... and they reluctantly admit that "yes, when they took the test that is actually the result they got".

This is no different that having a real map in a real landscape and recognizing a few navigation points to declare that we're probably in the neighborhood of State Street and 34th street. There's nothing nefarious about those street names and they could be renamed to the native words ... what matters is that the streets objectively exist on the territory and that the map shows where they are. Furthermore, it also shows which streets are adjacent. Again, this is based on correlations of patterns in the sense of "if you're like this, you're probably also like that". IOW, I now likely understand something about Mr ABCD beyond what they have told me. This is what often surprises people... especially those who have never gone very far beyond their own neighborhood (that is don't do much introspection in terms of why they behave a certain way). Maps make it possible to look beyond one's personal horizon. And also sometimes other people's horizons.

Basically, the territory is identified on the map and then the map is used to gain additional insights about the territory. This is not mentally difficult for someone who mainly thinks contextually and takes in the map as a whole. It is more difficult for those who are used to concrete or formal thinking.

Now, I do understand that some people definitely don't want to hear how they "fit an underlying pattern corresponding to a preference for X-mode of thinking or that their Y-mode of thinking is relatively undeveloped". The beautiful thing is that I don't have to tell anyone what I understand about them in order to use this to actually understand someone. This is in some sense a kind of mind-reading, but it only works because people really aren't as unique as they like to think they are. However, "fortune telling" it is not, because, as noted above, the maps are based on observations of very many people.

But, yeah, there's definitely some tension between the "lets build a personal connection through conversation (typically by telling each other stories and talking about what we feel about the stories)"-people and the "lets understand both how and what we think about..."-people. These two approaches are often mutually unsatisfying to each other. I tend to find the more common conversational-narratives relations-based approach to be boring and not very enjoyable if not downright vapid. It's quite likely that the feeling is mutual because I do not offer much to someone looking for a conversation about how we're all feeling or doing today or last week or next week. It simply doesn't do much for me.

OTOH, being familiar with maps of the territory beyond my own "jazz band" also means that I can enjoy a much deeper connection with people who 1) has access to similar mind maps; and/or 2) "march to the beat of a different drummer" than jazz musicians. This depth makes it worth it to me even if it means not getting much out of generic small talk about potlucks and sportsball.

Incidentally I think there's a bit of a "Normie privilege", for lack of a better word, going on in much of the population. Many simply don't realize or acknowledge that a minority of people think in different ways because as the majority, they generally don't even have to be aware of the differences. They are mostly surrounded by people who think and act the same as they do and for the same reasons ... of course each with their own unique and tiny variation.

This kind of privilege is the equivalent of being an American tourist and expecting that the whole world should understand English and understand American culture. If you're from a small country, you're likely much more attuned to the existence of different cultures and probably speak more than one language. There's a greater appreciation for how different people think differently as opposed to "everything is better at home and demand that everybody learn to speak English".

I'll use IQ as an example. BTW I really hate to use IQ because the concept has so much "baggage", but it is the most generally understood concept of all the psychometric data. Before the world became more politically correct, the official term for an IQ under 70 was "mild mental retardation". This group comprises about 2% of the population. Because the world is designed for humans centered around 100, the mildly retarded require extra help intellectually to exist in "normie world". Someone of average intelligence (100) will live in "normie world" where only 1 in 50 they run into is "mildly mentally retarded" compared to themselves. As such, this is not a problem. It's possible for the average person to relate to the occasional Forest Gump as the "exception to the rule" of normal conversation.

Now consider the difference for someone on the other end of the scale with an IQ that is thirty points above the mean. This used to be called "gifted" (gifted now has a more general connotation). This is the same relative jump. The odds of running into someone who is correspondingly relatively "mildly retarded" is now 1:1. Half of all people (<100) will be either unable or too mentally slow or too intellectually simple to follow all the mental leaps of the gifted person. The "exception to the rule"-rule no longer works for the gifted person. If they presume that everyone automatically understand them as easily as they understand themselves, they will be sorely disappointed.

Instead new rules are required. It becomes important for the "gifted" person what and what not half the people they encounter are able to understand and how to phrase their thoughts in simpler terms; walking people through the leaps of mind that they themselves take for granted. IOW, the gifted person needs a "theory of mind" for the average person. They can't just assume that the thought-space and processes of the average person overlaps mentally with their own.

I think this is also why one finds interest in such "type of people" models to be inversely proportional to the percentage of that type in the general population regardless of what variable we're talking about.

For example, looking at personalitycafe's forum activity, we find
SP general population is 27% but MBTI interest is 8%, => 29% conditional
SJ general population is 46% but MBTI interest is 6%, => 13% conditional
NT general population is 10% but MBTI interest is 37%, => 370% conditional
NF general population is 16% but MBTI interest is 50%, => 312% conditional

In other words, the random NT-rational is nearly 30 times as interested or likely to be interested in MBTI as the random SJ-guardian. In all likelihood, the random SJ don't or can not comprehend what the type indicator fuss is about. Why would anyone need mental models to talk to other people? Why "you just need to get out there and practice it". Uhm yeah, except that doesn't really work very well. (The fun thing is that this can be readily demonstrated by sending a single SJ or SP into a room with 9 NTs and watch all their so-called social skills *poof* vanish into thin air. Those skills weren't really skills as much as they were just a good fit to the normal majority environment.)

If more than anything these maps are useful to understand why any differences with other people in terms of interests and thought styles is not due to other people being "stupid" or "cognitively distorted" but that they are in a different mental place on the territory.

[guitarplayer]

MBTI will remain tricky to talk about, then again there are costs associated with moving to something else. And if it's working, why fix it?

Not sure now but a decade ago OCEAN and Eysenck's scales were mainstream accepted (or peer reviewed).

An internationally well regarded Jan Strelau built on Eysenck's work (and Pavlov's work) to come up with a theory of temperament rather than personality. When reading psych stuff temperament is probably always more tangible (->orange) than personality (cold).

Or maybe to begin with, temperament != personality is well established in psychology talk. Eysenck is famous for controversially saying:

"personality = temperament + intelligence"

[7Wannabe5]

The fun thing is that this can be readily demonstrated by sending a single SJ or SP into a room with 9 NTs and watch all their so-called social skills *poof* vanish into thin air. Those skills weren't really skills as much as they were just a good fit to their standard environment

I note that you didn't mention what would likely happen in the circumstance that you put a single NF into a room with 9 NTs Also, the structure of the social interaction is of some importance. For instance, if an INTJ was looking for a good sidekick, an ISTX would likely serve better than an ENTJ, because an ISTX would be more likely to simply "do" in accordance with plan provided, and, um, not so much an ENTJ, or even an ENTP. My FIL was an INTJ and his third wife was an ISTX who was probably a standard deviation below him in IQ, but they got along great, and she took very good care of him as he slowly went completely decrepit from Parkinson-like neurological disease. Much better than he got along with his first wife, my MIL, who was a high IQ ENFJ. That was pretty much a marriage made in hell.

There's definitely philosophical tension between the softer "everybody is a unique and beautiful person" approaches and the harder "types of people" approaches. However, for their respective users, they don't require any mental overhead. It's just how their brains are wired. What does require mental overhead or overload would be to be forced to use the other approach.

I believe both of these are true, and I don't have too much trouble integrating both approaches. There are chemicals produced by the brain that promote a sense of salience when we are "in love" with someone (or something.) Under the influence of these chemicals, we are made to notice more details about another human and assign them greater importance. Harry is not replaceable by Tom, because Tom doesn't "wear his hat" the way that Harry does. However, it is not necessary to be under the influence of salience increasing chemicals to comprehend that the number of ways in which individual humans may vary are more than adequate enough to produce well over 8 billion unique categorizations.

[7Wannabe5]

@guitarplayer:

Briefly skimming Eysenck, his work on criminality pretty clearly indicated that brain chemical best correlated with sociopathy is testosterone. Testosterone is also well known to promote ambition and bright mood. I think this is why It is natural for humans to associate ambitious male dominated fields such as finance with sociopathy.

[AxelHeyst]

As a +1 to Jacob's post, I feel like there's an implicit narrative in this thread that some people who are otherwise normal might get too deep into MBTI or other model-building and then become less adroit at social navigation. The arc is, in my experience, the opposite: people who are NOT adroit in social circumstances and find themselves floundering sometimes find MBTI or other models, use these models to build better maps for themselves, and become MORE adroit at social navigation, to the benefit of all.

People who don't find themselves floundering in social circumstances don't get into model building because it is unnecessary.

Another idea that I think is probably uncommon and not worth worrying about is the idea that the model-builders and map-readers have a constant internal explicit monologue along the lines of "aha I now have a 47% confidence that this person is TeFi which if my math is correct -- lets see square root of pi, carry the two -- aha yes, just as I suspected, vMeme is green with 4.6% orange tint". Which sounds mechanistic and anti-human and creepy.

My experience of having built a map from a model is nonverbal. Flashes of intuition. Half-conscious shifts in nonverbal body language, and mostly snap judgements about what sorts of things to talk about and what things not to talk about, and how to respond, etc. I talk to my exgf different than my bff different than Jacob, and the maps I've loaded into my head aid and inform these differences. If pressed, I can sit and think and break the decisions down using language of the different models and maps, but that's post-event analysis, not what goes on IN my head as the event is transpiring. Also it makes me sound like a bot.

...which all goes to add evidence to my theory that for some personality types, intj in particular just because that's what I'm familiar with, it's probably good practice to never attempt to explain what goes on under the hood. I often get the sense that other people are mildly horrified by how we tick and think we should (want to) be different. /shrug.

[AxelHeyst]

I mean, what are your social interactions/relationships like? The vast majority of interactions for the vast majority of my social circle/relationships require absolutely no deep, conscious analysis to be enjoyable, functional, or meaningful*. Like 99% or more. Planning a trip with SO? Talking to parents on phone? Chatting up a cashier? Discussing something work-related with a colleague? Attending pot-luck? Almost all of these interactions are largely friction-less and either neutral to enjoyable for me, most of the time. Am I freak, or is that normal?

For me, it's not the case that every interaction requires deep conscious analysis, a sort of operational level of analysis.

It IS the case that I had to put in a lot of effort deep conscious analysis up front, aka generally, in order to be able to have smooth social interactions.

Before I had maps, I floundered socially and it was painful for everyone involved.

Then I spent some time studying maps, and I have a basic intuitive sense of 'where I am' now, and so I can operate socially without much pain. Every once in a while I consult the map again for clues because I've wandered into a region I've not been before and want to ensure that I'm not incorrectly interpreting what I'm seeing with my own eyes.

The metaphor of maps is an excellent one. Best practice for maps is to stop moving, study the map, load it into your head, and then put the map away and move through the landscape, carefully observing *reality* and never attempting to force your mental model of the map on the actual landscape itself. Anyone whose spent time in the backcountry using maps understands this danger. You might *want* to be only 1.5miles from camp and headed SSW, but you need to be able to accept that you're 6.5miles and headed in the wrong direction.

Walking or running through the landscape without looking up from the map is obviously bad practice. Anyone who does this for any length of time will have bad consequences and self-correct if they have any sense, or burn a hole in their social landscape if they don't.