Somewhere sometime I read that we should not see functions as skills, or traits, but rather a set worldview, a perspective that colours all information that enters. I was fascinated by that thought, as it was a new way to grasp the personality type -thingies.

I wonder if anyone here have read the original "psychological types", and have some info on what personality types really are?

_________________
Is the cup half-full or half-empty? Neither, the cup is the rightful domain of air,
and water are the imperialistic invader that must be fought by all means neccesary.
Drink it.

I guess we all basically grasp psych types as mindsets, attitudinal tendencies and behavioral patterns. Think of person fundamentally as psyche - with its characteristic ways of gathering information, processing information, and communicating thought, attitude and feeling. So the psyche is like a corporal unity with its own set of muscles to grow and to exercise, so to speak. It is based on the organic functions of brain. Psyche grows by virtue of stimulation from the environment and one's conscious and subconscious evaluation and response to stimuli - this process in turn helps you develop type as neural pathways become more efficient at gathering and processing information in a certain way. This gives us further insight into the phenomenon of type, which though definitive of character, is - from the point of view of brain and psycho-social development - not meant to be static.

_________________

Fascinating. I'll have to churn over this. Thanks!

_________________
Is the cup half-full or half-empty? Neither, the cup is the rightful domain of air,
and water are the imperialistic invader that must be fought by all means neccesary.
Drink it.

I tend to agree with this view, mainly because the way we act (skills and traits) are so dependent on our upbringing and cultural surrounds. Two people can develop the same skill or trait, but have very different cognitive reasons for doing so. It's one of the reasons why I don't think the MBTI (as in the instrument) is particularly definitive when it comes to typing people--it's simply too culturally biased. It's useful as an indicator to point you in the general direction of your type (and in many cases, it is your type), but I encourage a lot of in-depth personal examination on top of it all.

I've read parts of Psychological Type that are posted online, and it too seems to be heavily slanted towards looking at specific behaviours to infer type.