Reconceptualization

At times I worry that we are so caught up in our past that it is difficult to truly engage in dialogue to create a more complete and comprehensive model for the future. Lessons from Jung and others need to be incorporated into the journey forward but not relived as the journey, which at times it feels we are stuck in. A number of the followers of this blog have suggested we need to talk about our assumptions about both type and the way to research type. Let's list all of the assumptions that need to be tested.

Cultural variations

What are effective ways to sort through cultural pressures and tacit expectations that affect type or are influenced by type, assuming type is a real psychological factor?

Barnum Effect

Have we all been fooled by type tables? We organize people by categories and ask them to talk about their experience and then point out how this proves type? Isn't this a kind of circus act in which we create an expectation and then reinforce it without really testing it? How can we "tease" out what is real in these kinds of activities?

Eight or Four Is Enough

Some argue that psychological type is about four functions that are manifest in two psychological attitudes (e.g. Sening that is Extraversion and Sensing that is Introversion) while others argue that their are eight functions (e.g. Introverted Sensing, Extraverted Sensing, etc.). How do we measure this and does it make a difference?

A Rose By Any Other Name

Are the "poles" presented in various measurements of psychological type truly quantumly different? Is introversion just very low extraversion? Is the quantum difference present with some preferences and not with others? Would we say that Sensing is just very low Intuiting? Are the three functions--energy, perception, and judgment--so very different that we need to reconceputlaize how these are presented and studied?

Swing Low Sweet...

What do "low" scores really mean on measures of psychological type? What do "high scores really mean? Forget the manuals of these tools for a moment as the publilshers have a vested interest in their assumptions. How can we "test" the meaning of scores in a productive way? Have you seen patterns and differences given the scoring extremes on the tool you use?

Research question: Is psychological type the same as personality type?

Some would argue that a confusion has emerged between psychological type and personality models. Some thinkers point out that psychological type is about psychologcal processes that do not necessarily have correlates in behavior while others point out that personality is about the consistency of behavior across situations. How do we explore this question? Is there a unified perspective that bridges them both?