Understanding Jungian cognitive functions will not tell you who you are. It will give you an objectively verifiable framework for understanding how your mind works. This subtle but crucial point makes all the difference, and is missed by every criticism of it I have come across.
You misconstrued my statement. I said it is a predictive model, not a predictor, in the same way that weather forecasting is a predictive model for the weather.
-
-
You cannot tell me what any given INFP will do tomorrow based off of their past behaviour. You can post-hoc rationalise their behavior for sure.
-
The point is not what an individual does, but what an individual's cognitive makeup is. Given that knowledge, a reliable estimate of the general direction of their action can be made. Forecasting won't tell you the shape or position of a cloud, only if it will be there or not.
-
'reliable estimate of the general direction'...I don't know why you are trying to insist on sneaking a scientific analysis into Jungian types...something can be be both useful and unscientific
-
I am not claiming it is scientific. I am simply saying it works -in the real world- as a predictive model for behavior. As you said, something can be both useful and unscientific.
-
Newtonian physics is predictive when it can point to where a certain planet will be visible at a certain time. This is what predictive means. Human behavior is too complex to ever be 'predictive'. People can have consistent habits of acting without being predictable.
-
This is the reason I said predictive of behavior, and not predictive of action, or specific actions. We are in ageement - let's not argue semantics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavior
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
You've misconstrued Jung's typology. It is not a predictive model.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.