|
|
Post by vincent on Nov 11, 2020 14:18:52 GMT -5
Here is Eric Strauss (aka "talking with famous people") main document on typology :
It's a pretty Ti heavy presentation of his system (which is a 8 slots MBTI one with some socionics influence).
My first (and second, and third) impression is that it's a pretty mixed bag of standard stuff, hidden gems and weird nonsense.
But i'm going to read fully in the coming weeks and i'll comment here on what seems interesting to me/for us.
|
|
hiddenglass
Swallow
lay me to rest, take me to sea // read my mind… let me be.
Posts: 179
Enneagram Core Fix: 5⁴
Relationship Status: searching
Occupation(s): idling
Education: ongoing
Interests: growing
Country/Region: chicago
|
Post by hiddenglass on Dec 3, 2020 6:04:32 GMT -5
*subscribe*
|
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Dec 29, 2020 10:38:26 GMT -5
Let me introduce this by giving my general take on Eric Strauss and his system.
First of all, Eric isn't mistyped.
It's rare enough in this field to be noted.
He is indeed NeTi.
(People who argue he is SeTi because when he gets angry, he gets angry are idiots.
The only acceptable mistype for him would be SiFe, due to how much he peacocks Si inf.)
His system is a 8 slots mbti one, with some socionic influence.
For that reason alone, it's close to what we are doing in many ways.
Until it's not. But more on this later.
What distinguishes him from most people in this field is his strictly cognitivist and positivist approach.
At his best, he is really trying to stick to an understanding of cognitive functions in terms of "how we process informations". Which is a LOT better than the general tendency in the online community to correlate every single behavioral traits with this or that function, until everything dissolves into hollow stereotypes and clichés.
One consequence of this is the underlying idea that functions can and should be tested.
That performance can and should be assessed, empirically proven and demonstrated. Leading to absolute certainty when typing people.
And that's where i start to strongly disagree with him.
I disagree because functions can never be completely isolated.
They work in synergy with each other. Compensate each other. Overlap with each other.
So you can never cleanly test ONE function.
Different people will use different functions to "beat" the same tests.
And even if it was possible to isolate functions the matrix of slots is too dynamic and complex to allow for an easy interpretation of results.
Failure to a test doesn't automatically mean "tada, i found the polr !".
The thing is Eric is generally over-confident and over-reliant on the value of his tests.
To the point of missing obvious typing clues because he is too focused on a pseudo-quantitative aspect, and going blind to the qualitative one.
tbcd.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Dec 29, 2020 14:34:18 GMT -5
First of all, Eric isn't mistyped.
It's rare enough in this field to be noted.
He is indeed NeTi.
(People who argue he is SeTi because when he get angry, he get angry are idiots.
The only acceptable mistype for him would be SiFe, due to how much he peacocks Si inf.)
ftr Auburn thinks he's SiFe with all four functions 'developed'. He feels he 'underestimated' him. Auburn types almost nobody with all four functions developed but of all people...Eric Strauss is clearly stunted in some fundamental way; he is the last person to be one of the tiny minority who are so complete (with Rajneesh, Tolle and Sheldrake of the Pigeon Pea all being oc NiFe 1. But I digress, off-topic, etc. Mea culpa.) ps vincent , something interesting here is that Auburn didn't come up with any video where Eric actually showed all four functions 'vultologically', which is an implicit admission that video/vultology typing is just one tool period. |
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Dec 29, 2020 14:49:48 GMT -5
ps Maybe that post should be moved in whole or part or at least edited (and this one deleted). But I wanted to point it out now.
Hmmm, i think it's fine here actually.
The rest of this thread should shed some light on what's going on with Eric's Si.
And show why Auburn's typing of him kind of makes sense and absolutely doesn't make sense at the same time.
The thing is both of them have opposite but equally simplistic definitions of what "developped" means.
Both of them wrongly think they can measure "development" quantitatively, even if they do so very differently.
So it makes sense to discuss them together.
|
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Dec 31, 2020 13:16:17 GMT -5
Well, the first very obvious thing is that it doesn't start directly with cognitive typology.
The typological stuff doesn't really start before page 15.
At first, we get a serie of "one page outlines" on Eric's philosophy, ontology, metaphysics and epistemology.
His own personal "tractatus logico-philosophicus", so to speak.
Roughly.
Of course, the format itself is very Ti.
Apparently, those are axioms and premises. The underlying architectonic of the system he is going to "derive" later.
Except you can already see, right from the start, that this Ti is not absolute value, but instrumental.
It starts like this :
"1) To observe is to establish a distinction. a) Object vs Field is one basic distinction that might be observed."
This a) isn't a deduction from 1), not a corrolary, not a proof of 1). It's merely an example of 1).
And the funny thing here is... the word "field" won't appear again. At all.
Because of course, it's OUR job to do something with those allusive examples, and to fill in the blanks. Si inferior delegates.^^
Everything after that, in the first 14 pages, is like that.
Those first pages doesn't really outline a strong and solid Ti framework.
They open a conceptual frame, claim authority over it. Show off with "feats of conciseness" (everything about in X in 1 page only !). Ne with Fe agenda.
And that's it. Pretty much.
At some point, out of the blue, he goes into a rant against how Jung and socionics defines introverted function as subjective and extraverted function as objective.
The whole point of it is to establish that Ti at least is objective, becauses it removes the subject from the equation.
Which, of course, tells us more about Eric's Fi polr than it does about Ti.
tbcd.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2021 6:05:29 GMT -5
I took the liberty of skimming through it, pulling the tables, and then making notes on them. imgur.com/a/CNOJvuZAttachments:
|
|
