Challenges
Introduction
Humans, unlike the laws of gravity, aren't as simple and predictable. We are complex creatures, running on the most intricate system known in the universe—the human brain. Although science has made big advancements over the last century in studying and explaining the physiology of our minds, it has yet been able to explain the most important part yet; the psychology of our minds.
Hence, typology is a soft science for one simple reason: our psyche is not a tangible thing, at least not at the moment. While there are clear signs of human instincts that drive our behavior, it is hard to establish a concrete link between them and cognitive functions. This ambiguity has brought about many challenges in typology; some bigger, some smaller; some surmountable, some inexplicable.
Psychology is a very unsatisfactory science.
Wolfgang Köhler
Let's take a look at the field of social sciences. Some critics argue that psychology is not scientific, citing its research methods as inherently subjective and lacking the key attributes of scientific inquiry, such as objectivity, validity, and rigor.
But take for example, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The only way to diagnose PTSD is by assessing a list of strict criteria that depends heavily on observing a patient’s behavior and subjective reports of their memories. This means that PTSD cannot be measured by a mere fMRI scan because trauma is unquantifiable. And for that, some might go as far as to say that PTSD does not exist.
However, just because PTSD is not quantifiable by traditional means, does not mean that it is not a real condition. It simply highlights the incredible complexity of the human mind; an intricate entity far more complicated than the measure of time and gravity.
Similarly, typology is a real phenomenon, but it is not easy to prove. While certain behaviors can clearly be observed across different personality types, there is simply not enough scientific research to fully verify their links to cognitive functions.
There are even some members within the scientific community that go as far as to dismiss psychology as complete pseudoscience, simply because its studies are not scientific enough to their liking.
Although psychology and typology may not fall under the category of hard science, they are still science nonetheless. That is because their research is grounded in the scientific method—a standardized approach for making observations, collecting data, forming theories, testing predictions, and interpreting results.
Ideally, it would be best if social sciences were more scientifically rigorous. But in reality, we must understand that the disciplines related to the human mind are often too abstract and intangible to meet the rigid criteria applied to physics or math.
In short, science as we know it is still unable to fully explain human consciousness. However, the fact that it remains beyond the grasp of science does not mean that human consciousness—a deep awareness of self—does not exist.
With all that said, we definitely recognize the importance of scientific rigor. If we allow science to take on a loose definition, its integrity as the bearer of truth will only be corrupted. But regardless of how far science has come, we need to accept the reality that there are still many things that it fails to account for. This means that we still have a long way to go, especially in the realm of human consciousness.
Nevertheless, what's more important lies in the understanding that typology has brought about. Although it isn’t hard science, it has revealed many intriguing insights on human behavior, helping us better understand ourselves and those around us. Oftentimes, viewing the world through the lens of typology gives us a new perspective on life, transforming our interactions and relationships for the better.
While waiting for future advancements in science, we will continue to refine our personality system as much as we can. It is only a matter of time before scientists unlock the mechanics behind consciousness. But until then, we can only push on, keeping our framework up to date with the latest discoveries and breakthroughs of the human mind.
As we speak, the typology community faces numerous obstacles that are difficult to surmount. Focusing on the ones that matter, we narrowed them down into several main challenges, intending to address each one at its core. By overcoming most of these hurdles, we can then create a truly effective personality system, one that everyone can use to supercharge their personal growth.
Vague Descriptions
In 1948, an American psychologist named Bertram Forer conducted an experiment to demonstrate the Barnum Effect. Forer gave his students a personality test, but instead of returning them individualized results, he gave all of them the same identical analysis cut out from an astrology column in the newspaper.
When asked to rate the accuracy of their test results, the students gave an average score of 4.3 out of 5. It's not surprising that Forer’s students fell for the Barnum Effect. After all, we humans are prone to finding personal meaning in ambiguous statements. Oftentimes, we relate to generic descriptions of our personalities, perhaps because we want them to be true.
And the thing is, many personality frameworks present their clients with overly positive type descriptions, which may explain why people tend to resonate with their type results. We like praises, so it's only natural for most people to be attracted to positive messages about themselves. Unfortunately, these self-affirming messages may be harmful if they are not kept in check, as they may feed one's ego and inflate their self-esteem.
The problem with Barnum statements is that they add little value to people’s lives. More often than not, the advice offered is too shallow to target specific areas for improvement, providing limited insights that do not bring about real transformation in people.
Hence, instead of vague statements, personality frameworks should provide type descriptions that are specific and, more importantly, contrasting enough so that people can quickly determine if the feedback is an accurate reflection of who they are. Furthermore, distinct traits often paint a more detailed picture of a personality type, providing people with useful insights that will add value to their lives.
In addition to this, it is crucial for personality frameworks to incorporate uncomfortable truths in order to counteract the Barnum Effect. Studies have shown that people are more likely to identify with positive statements as opposed to negative ones, for obvious reasons. But the fact is, real change can only occur when we confront the painful realities about ourselves.
Unreliable Definitions
Descriptions are used to paint a clearer picture of what is said, but definitions exist to make them concrete. By defining the subject matter clearly, it fills vague ideas and concepts with substance, ensuring that readers are left with the correct understanding. Unfortunately, many personality systems suffer from a lack of clarity in their terms and claims, resulting in vague and inconsistent definitions.
Such systems usually work out only because they operate on ambiguity. To describe personality types, they use terms that are vague enough to appear convincing to people. As such, their assertions are often difficult to dispute as no one can really counter statements so broad that they encompass everything.
In truth, abstract and ambiguous explanations are an illusion that relies on the fallacy of vagueness to make sense. A little scrutiny is all it takes for their claims to fall apart.
But what is the real problem with vagueness? It is the confusion that it sows among the typology community. Ambiguity often leaves everything open to interpretation, and without clarity, people can only resort to their own assumptions.
Imagine reading something like this: "They prefer to relax in their free time." What does “relax” mean? For some, it might mean staring blankly into the night sky, while for others, it might be organizing a detailed trip for their family. Such vague statements often carry many meanings, conveying different messages to different people, straying far off from what was intended.
Let's take a look at another example. It is common to hear that Thinker personality types are often more critical towards others. While it is true at a glance, it becomes confusing when we further ponder the definition of the word “critical”.
With a closer look, we will find that Feeler types can be equally or even more judgmental than Thinkers, but in different aspects of life. Feelers are often critical when something does not feel right, just as Thinkers are when things do not make sense.
There is no greater impediment to the
advancement of knowledge than
the ambiguity of words.
Thomas Reid
Other than ambiguity, many personality systems have contradicting definitions, or internal inconsistency as it is commonly termed among researchers. In other words, it means that certain statements within a system may be independently true, but contradict one another when compared side by side, resulting in invalid and illogical claims.
For instance, a personality system may claim that those who advocate for control are likely also those who often go with the flow, asserting that people are inclined to preach their weaknesses out of pride in having overcome them.
However, the same personality system may also suggest that people naturally champion their strengths, as it is second nature to them. For example, an organized person may teach others the importance of maintaining stability and consistency in life because that’s what they have been doing their entire life.
Herein lies the confusion. Both statements can be true when they stand on their own. But when brought together, they contradict each other. So the next time we encounter such behavior, how should we type the individual in question? When they speak of being organized, are they preaching their strength or weakness?
In cases like these, the two claims are internally inconsistent. Both may be true on their own, but because they contradict each other when brought side by side, it renders both of those statements invalid.
The strength of a system lies in the clarity of its claims and definitions. Clear explanations must be paired with sufficient context to ensure that a precise picture of a type is painted.
Besides, the criteria for evaluating personality type must be internally consistent to ensure precision. Each criterion to discern personality types must be true and consistent throughout, if not, the entire foundation of the system will be shaken.
Most importantly, theories hold no value if their claims do not correlate with reality. Their theories might be internally consistent, but if they are out of touch with reality, any conclusion reached will not accurately reflect a personality type.
All in all, clarity, consistency, and accuracy are essential for a personality system to be truly objective and reliable. Only by addressing these aspects properly can typology take a step closer to being more scientific and valid.
Complicated Jargons
A user manual, no matter how precise and technically accurate, is of little use if no one wants to read it. It may be thoroughly detailed, but what good does such a handbook bring if its language is far too perplexing for people to understand?
Therein lies the problem: some personality frameworks are overly technical and theoretical, employing complex jargon that only a fraction of the typology community understands. These theories may be highly accurate, but reading them is akin to reading the manual of a microwave oven—very few may like it, but most find it unappealing. Given the complex write-up of these frameworks, they discourage many from stepping into the world of typology.
Example of a "technical" description:
The attitude of the unconscious as an effective complement to the conscious extraverted attitude has a definitely introverting character. It concentrates the desire on the subjective factor, that is, on all those needs and demands that are stifled or repressed by the conscious attitude.
(Excerpted from Psychological Types, by C. G. Jung, 1974)
In addition to that, some frameworks are completely scientific and data-driven, but they aren't built on any theoretical foundation. The Big Five personality traits serve as a good example to illustrate our point. After returning your results, that's the end of it. But what's the point of knowing that you scored 65% for Conscientiousness? What does that even mean? Should we be concerned? How can this factual data help us out with personal growth or interrelationship dynamics?
These questions remain largely unanswered because the Big Five offers few explanations. People are only fed with cold hard facts about their position on the spectrum and left to wonder about the meaning of those results. Such systems may be data-driven, but it offers little to no avenue for self-growth.
Consider, for example, a geologist who devotes years of his life to scrutinizing minerals, meticulously determining their relative levels of hardness. After amassing a wealth of data over the span of a decade, the geologist ultimately arrives at the conclusion that diamonds reign supreme as the hardest mineral.
But suppose his research stops there. Soon enough, a big question mark will arise in people's minds—what’s the point of this information? What value lies in knowing that diamonds are harder than corundum, aside from it being a fun fact? How does this data translate into something truly useful?
Similarly, when it comes to typology, it is crucial to convert raw data into actionable and beneficial insights. In other words, data and theory must converge to form an effective personality framework. This is because a theory requires both typology to guide individuals towards self-improvement, and data to prove its applicability in the real world.
Even the best theories out there are bound to fail if it is too complicated for the masses, or if it is too superficial to carry any meaningful point. The same holds true for typology. As such, we have tried to simplify intricate concepts like the cognitive processes and densities of energy into something accessible while preserving the fundamental ideas of our typology system.
After all, these frameworks are created for one ultimate goal: to facilitate the personal growth and advancement of all individuals. If the complexity or redundancy of a typology system repels the very people it was designed to help, then it has failed to serve its purpose.
Other Difficulties
The challenges outlined above describe issues related primarily to the personality frameworks themselves. As mentioned, how a framework is developed and the way it is presented plays a huge role in determining its accessibility and usability.
Therefore, it is clear that the development of a typology framework is no simple feat. Creating the perfect personality system is a delicate process that requires its developers to strike a balance between being too technical and dry, or overly vague and inaccurate.
But the challenges don't just end here. As we will see, the efficacy and precision of typology does not solely depend on its framework. In the following section, we shall explore a few other challenges that extend beyond the typology system itself.
Read next part → Challenges In Typology II