My theory of personality types

[Kimani]

All feedback is welcome and appreciated

 

 

Math and synergy can be used to understand human behavior. Metaphysics and modern psychology are explored using a formula. This formula transcends those beliefs. It reorganizes Carl Jung's concept of archetypes. It involves synergy in that it combines types until they assume a new meaning and can be viewed and classified under a larger umbrella.

 

Archetypes are primal symbols of people. They are basic instincts and tendencies. Archetypes represent the hopes, desires, and needs that people universally exhibit and express without being aware of it. They are our primitive selves. They make up the unconscious mind.

 

These archetypes are building blocks in determining personalities. Their fusion allows you to view personality types from a different perspective.

 

Many individual archetypes are found in people at the same time / over a lifetime. These archetypes seperately show fragments of people's unconscious minds. These archetypes combined display a large part or portion of the unconsciou mind. When organized into groups of two they spell out psychological conditions. What seems random at first becomes very familiar when placed in a different context. Archetypes are primal and one-dimensionl. Civilized man is two-dimensionl.

 

There are six archetypes in this equation. They include The Child, The Hero, The Mother, The Shadow, The Trickster, and The Wise Old Man. Each archetype represents a distinctive trait. The Child lacks restrain. The Hero is vulnerable. The Mother is empathetic and comforting. The Shadow is a symbol of apathy. The Wise Old Man is insightful.

 

The six archetypes are divided into three sets. There are two archetypes in each set. The combination of the two archetypes in each set results in a model for psychological conditions. The Hero and The Wise Old Man combine to form the bipolar spectrum and Asperger's syndrome. The Mother and The Child combine to form avoidant, co-dependency, and dependency. The Shadow and The Trickster combine to form borderline, histrionic, narcissism, and sociopathy.

 

There are twelve psychological condtions / types used in this concept. They are Asperger's syndrome, bipolar 1, bipolar 2, cyclothymia, Asperger's syndrome, avoidant, co-depedency, borderline, histrionic, narcissism, and sociopathy.

 

During periods of mania people experience bursts of creativity. Bipolar results in extended periods of mania so therefore a fluctuation of creativity but also intense vulnerability when the mania is over. The obsessive nature of people with Asperger's syndrome also results in a fluctuation of creativity and an inability to understand and be aware of people's feelings and perceptions.

 

Avoidants, co-dependents, and dependents tend to look to others for constant validation. They are very accommodating in their nature. There are large amounts of professional behavior in all three.

 

Borderlines, histrionics, narcissists and sociopaths all have a disposition that leans towards a self-absorbed personality. They draw people into relationships that are based on deceit and self-gratification. This results in large quantities of charming behavior in all four types.

 

The similar elements of these conditions unify them. They form an entity. These entities are used to define an individual. This is a method of identifying individuality. A person will gravitate towards one of three entities much more than any of the others. Three characters are used to symbolize humanity. Society is divided into three essential segments.

 

Artistrty, Professionalism, Opportunism

 

The Designer, The Professional, The Charmer

 

Experiences during childhood are catalysts. They mold and shape people. Habits developed as a youth act as infections. They stunt growth and progression in certain individual areas while leaving remaining areas alone. The end result of this process is this triad of entities.

 

A lifestyle or career isn't defined by this system. This is a state of mind. These are identities and alter-egos. They form an existence.

 

The mind is like a machine in this way. The brain is layered and textured with concepts until they take on form, shape, and color. The unconscious mind has built a program.

 

 

 

The Designer

 

Archetypes: The Hero - vulnerable, troubled

The Wise Old Man - mentor / guide

Tendencies: withdrawn, analytical, creative

Talents: composing, equating, calculating

Conditions: Asperger's syndrome, bipolar spectrum

 

 

 

 

The Professional

 

Archetypes: The Child - unconditional love, submission

The Mother - nurturing, devoted

Tendencies: generosity, dedication, humility, sacrifice

Talents: consoling, comforting, compromising, estimating

Conditions: avoidant, co-dependecy, dependency

 

 

 

 

The Charmer

 

Archetypes: The Shadow - back stabbing

The Trickster - devious, sneaky

Tendencies: impulsive, manipulative, egocentric

Talents: seducing, tempting, exploiting

Conditions: borderline, histrionic, narcissism, sociopathy

[thedarkshade]

Math and synergy can be used to understand human behavior. Metaphysics and modern psychology are explored using a formula.

Isn't it the other way round? Modern psychology can be used to understand the human behavior. Metaphysics is used to explain concepts that are beyond our physical sense, like spirit, God etc. And math is explored using formulas.

[foodchain]

Isn't it the other way round? Modern psychology can be used to understand the human behavior. Metaphysics is used to explain concepts that are beyond our physical sense, like spirit, God etc. And math is explored using formulas.

 

Metaphysics is not to be denoted as spirituality. This is a gross confusion really, simply put I know the definitions of the words, and that of course that they are two different words.

 

Math is used on itself as long as axioms which do not require proof can coexist in peace. It gives the ability to model something, like the dynamics of flight or or genes functioning. Axioms are to me a postulate, something that is more then conjecture, that can sustain long enough in some system for its position, such as at the root, which can validate the system, such as a math formula being able to make sense, even if it just mere pattern.

[jeremyhfht]

There's a problem with your whole "reorganization of Jung archetypes". It doesn't explain human behaviors so much as it "recategorizes" them in a confusing and unnecessary manner. It's more like a superficial categorization of personality types that only exists for mild amusement with no real applicability. There seems to be no point to them whatsoever.

 

In fact what it does do is end up limiting views into archetypes rather than a broad view of diagnosis. I'll use the archetypes provided as an example:

 

1. The Child - lacks restraint

 

The archetypes are also misleading by name. "The Child" for example, brings up thoughts of curiosity, energy, creativity, ignorance, etc. Not "lacks restraint".

 

While it's all well and good if you want to lump charactaristics into something like "The child" (as I provided in those thoughts), it's important to realize that various disorders have deeper sides to them. Such as a person having an outward appearance of some archetypes, but an inward disagreement with said outward archetype.

 

So someone may be like "the child" in that they lack mental/physical restraint. But there could be environmental factors causing them to do so. Ergo, inwardly they'd love nothing more than to be a mix of "the child" and "The wise old man" (and internally they are).

 

Which brings up another problem with archetypes. Cross-"pollenization" of the various types to create unique types. In the end, it's much more efficient to skip adhering to archetypes and go straight to analysis of the personality. Which means archetypes have no practical application.

 

I'm not exactly sure what you went on to do. You completely lost focus while writing and went off on a non-sequitur tangent only to bring it back with some further examples at the bottom of the page that furthers my confusion.

[Psycho]

There's a problem with your whole "reorganization of Jung archetypes". It doesn't explain human behaviors so much as it "recategorizes" them in a confusing and unnecessary manner. It's more like a superficial categorization of personality types that only exists for mild amusement with no real applicability. There seems to be no point to them whatsoever.

 

In fact what it does do is end up limiting views into archetypes rather than a broad view of diagnosis. I'll use the archetypes provided as an example:

 

 

 

The archetypes are also misleading by name. "The Child" for example, brings up thoughts of curiosity, energy, creativity, ignorance, etc. Not "lacks restraint".

 

While it's all well and good if you want to lump charactaristics into something like "The child" (as I provided in those thoughts), it's important to realize that various disorders have deeper sides to them. Such as a person having an outward appearance of some archetypes, but an inward disagreement with said outward archetype.

 

So someone may be like "the child" in that they lack mental/physical restraint. But there could be environmental factors causing them to do so. Ergo, inwardly they'd love nothing more than to be a mix of "the child" and "The wise old man" (and internally they are).

 

Which brings up another problem with archetypes. Cross-"pollenization" of the various types to create unique types. In the end, it's much more efficient to skip adhering to archetypes and go straight to analysis of the personality. Which means archetypes have no practical application.

 

I'm not exactly sure what you went on to do. You completely lost focus while writing and went off on a non-sequitur tangent only to bring it back with some further examples at the bottom of the page that furthers my confusion.

 

I have to agree, you are grouping people into archetypes that really make no sense as surely if you are part of 2 archetypes and there enough people like that that would create another intermediate one, which would have an intermediate precise description and then of course you would have people in between the new one and one of the old ones, meaning there are hundreds of groups to classify people, which really tell you nothing as with knowledge of the subject you should be able to come to the same conclusions without the extra step of grouping them

 

That is beside the fact that some of your definitions are the opposite of the meaning such as the hero where as others relate directly to them for instance the wise old man.

[vampares]

My grandmother had this test for babes: place three objects in front of the child: a wrench, a silver dollar and something else, probably a book. Which ever one the child picked up first was a prediction on the personality (if he didn't choose any object, then he was "simple").

 

I would correlate these three to your achetypes as such:

wrench - The Professional

silver - The Charmer

book - The Designer

 

This test was always done in secret; the mere suggestion of predestination is heresy in the Lutheran Church.

 

Cross-"pollenization" of the various types to create unique types.

Just these three types.

[John Cuthber]

There are probably an infionite number of ways to split people into categories. Rich or poor, splits them two ways. Human or non-human doesn't split them at all. Personally I think the population falls naturally into about 6billion groups.

The important question is "do any of the categorisations help anyone?"

[Kimani]

I thought that the three types allow people to view themselves in a different way than they may have viewed themselves before. it puts their conditions / disorders in a more positive light. You design. You charm. You are professional. I don't see what is so pointless about it.

 

 

I agree that you dont need the archetypes to reach these conclusions about people but I find it interesting to do that way.

[iNow]

Ask yourself... What does it add to the existing knowledge base? If you struggle to answer this simple question, you might reconsider the relevance of the approach.

[Kimani]

Well I think it shows that math can actually be applied to psychology. I think it also legitimizes beliefs such as Gnosticism.

[iNow]

Well I think it shows that math can actually be applied to psychology. I think it also legitimizes beliefs such as Gnosticism.

 

How?

[Kimani]

Well I'm using division to come up with personality types. Im dividing archetypes until they take on new meaning and manifest themselves as something else.

 

These types are like windows into how/what people really are. I think they are people in their true forms. Gnostics believe that there is more to us than what we can see. There are other forces and thats what this seems like. Another force.

 

I never really understood the difference between Gnosticism and metaphysics. They both seem to cover the same territory. I mean they both try to explain the true nature of people.

[foodchain]

Well I'm using division to come up with personality types. Im dividing archetypes until they take on new meaning and manifest themselves as something else.

 

These types are like windows into how/what people really are. I think they are people in their true forms. Gnostics believe that there is more to us than what we can see. There are other forces and thats what this seems like. Another force.

 

I never really understood the difference between Gnosticism and metaphysics. They both seem to cover the same territory. I mean they both try to explain the true nature of people.

 

Metaphysics is not spirituality. Physics by itself is just pure math, there really exists no point in simply trying to describe it more then just that. So, outside of this, the other part, that brings statements like what would happen to you as you went into a BH or a singularity or what not is what metaphysics used to be, when it was used, sort of like a duality thing, or a human thing, or what not.

 

Lastly about the personality types. Personally as you speak English I would assume some environmental reality made that possible. So in reality how do you account for environment in your types? As I understand the absence of environment, or say "culturing" a human in a sensory deprivation tank probably would only produce horrible results, heck the thought is even nasty alone. So basically that’s just it, in my humble opinion the "hardware" of what it means to be human such as having a human physiology is not really understood as well as I would like for say the reality of what psychology is in the modern world, or any related science. I don’t think you can really bring to bear the understanding that required for what they can and of course do in reality. Though I know this does not account for learning but that does bring up the whole environment bit again.

 

If you don’t believe me on the metaphysics bit that entire argument is alive and well in say philosophy but the majority view and I guess more or less in line also with history was metaphysics was the human interpretation of say math produced by physics.

[Kimani]

Environment is everything in this theory. Environment is what causes these types to surface. I dont believe that intelligence or personality is genetic.

 

That being said I think that aspect is something to ponder but I don't really see it as being relevant to diagnosing people or having people diagnose themselves as one of these types. It's interesting to think about but is it beneficial?

[drochaid]

On what evidence is this "theory" based?

[Kimani]

Well If you are familiar with these disorders you would know that some of them have similar characteristics. Since they have common elements they can be classified or grouped together.

 

I think there is evidence that the archetypes that Carl Jung recognized in people can be alligned with these conditions so that they are equivalent to each other. Again being familiar with the archetypes as he describes them helps and being familiar with the disorders also helps.

[drochaid]

I asked on what evidence this theory was based, as in, what evidence you or your research group have collected which supports your "theory". I did not ask what pre-existing philosophy you have used as your starting point, which was provided in your opening post anyway.

[Kimani]

I'm just basing this on an existing philosophy or existing evidence. I dont have a research group. I dont understand the need to do further research when these types / disorders have already been thoroughly explored.

[drochaid]

Then this is not a theory, it is your personal opinion. As for your lack of understanding on the need for further research... I'm absolutely astounded. All this shows is that you have absolutely no clue about the field and that further debate on this topic is pointless.

[Kimani]

No its still a theory. Im just using evidence and philosophies that are already in place. Most people dont even ask me about research. You are like the second person who has done so. Most people Ive shown this to just accept it as a theory regardless of whether they support it or not.

[iNow]

No its still a theory. Im just using evidence and philosophies that are already in place. Most people dont even ask me about research. You are like the second person who has done so. Most people Ive shown this to just accept it as a theory regardless of whether they support it or not.

 

If this is a theory, then what testable predictions does it make?

 

 

"Most people?"

[drochaid]

No its still a theory. Im just using evidence and philosophies that are already in place. Most people dont even ask me about research. You are like the second person who has done so. Most people Ive shown this to just accept it as a theory regardless of whether they support it or not.

 

No it is not a theory. A theory is a scientifically research proven hypothesis which can be duplicated by others using the same types of experiment to reach the same approximate conclusions. (along with what iNow said about testable predictions)

 

You have provided an opinion. At best, a hypothesis.. but as you not only have no plans on doing research and also fail to see the need for it, I refute that option.

 

If I am really the second person to ask for your evidence, I question the nature of the people you have shown it to! But then again, if they accept this as a theory, they're not worth questioning. You require fresh evidence to support YOUR thoughts.. not recycling someone else's evidence to make it fit, which it clearly doesn't, or they would have come to your conclusions and not their own.

[Kimani]

Where does it say a theory has to be scientifically researched? Where the does it say it has to be proven by this research in order for it to be a theory?

 

Its an idea I had while extensively studying metaphysics and modern psychology. It is a theory. This is a non-issue. You are hung up on something that is irelevant.

 

Ive been promoting this thing all over. Ive been to many different messageboards that have anything to do with this and yes you are the second person to bring up research. Nobody defines theory in the way you do.

[iNow]

Where does it say a theory has to be scientifically researched? Where the does it say it has to be proven by this research in order for it to be a theory?

 

Its an idea I had while extensively studying metaphysics and modern psychology. It is a theory. This is a non-issue. You are hung up on something that is irelevant.

 

Ive been promoting this thing all over. Ive been to many different messageboards that have anything to do with this and yes you are the second person to bring up research. Nobody defines theory in the way you do.

 

Kilmani,

 

At it's heart, Science Forums dot Net is... uhhmm ... a science forum.

[drochaid]

Where does it say a theory has to be scientifically researched? Where the does it say it has to be proven by this research in order for it to be a theory?

 

Its an idea I had while extensively studying metaphysics and modern psychology. It is a theory. This is a non-issue. You are hung up on something that is irelevant.

 

Ive been promoting this thing all over. Ive been to many different messageboards that have anything to do with this and yes you are the second person to bring up research. Nobody defines theory in the way you do.

 

That is the definition of theory for the scientific field and you have posted on *science*forums.net. But, being scientific and not some no-hoper twat, allow me to provide references...

 

From wikipedia: now I'm not the site's greatest fan, but sometimes it can be useful.

 

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.

 

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts

 

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech.

 

But then of course there is the great bastion of etymology, the Oxford English Dictionary:

 

4. a. A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.

 

6. In loose or general sense: A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence, a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of ideas about something; an individual view or notion. Cf. 4.

 

You will note two clear forms of the word theory there. One which is in common use, equating to opinion, conjecture.. just as I have pointed out your post is. The other being the scientifically defined definition of theory and the only one relevant in this instance.

 

You most certainly have not extensively studied modern psychology. You would not have got past the absolute basics without learning what a theory is. It is absolutely key to modern psychology to work within the scientific community. replicating their standards and methods, with adaption, where necessary.

 

As for your claim that nobody defines theory in the way I do... laughable. The more you respond, the clearer it becomes that you have absolutely no clue about the field you are pretending to be a member of. If you do not have even the most utterly basics knowledge behind you, nor the will to go off and do just a little research when challenged in order to make sure you're right .. because there is absolutely no way in hell you could miss such fundamental definitions through any other reason that laziness or bloody mindedness .. how can any of us take your suggestions seriously? Whether they have merit or no is suddenly irrelevant (that's how you spell the word, btw) as you have lost any possible chance of credibility with the people who reads this thread.

 

How's the weather for you? Bit windy here.